Who can be held liable?

[mauser]

If someone is at a shooting range and does something that causes injury or death to himself or someone else, or happens to be injured by an unsafe situation of some sort that is no fault of their own, there will surely be insurance claims and law suits.
The insurance part should be fairly straightforward.
When the affected/injured parties settle the insurance issue and the law suits are filed, who else can be held liable?
Could it be the owner of the facility where the incident happened?
Could the club officers also be included in litigation?
What about active members?
Will incorporating (LLC or variation thereof) protect the owner and/or officers and members?
Is there some sort of built in immunity whereby incorporation isn't needed for protection?
I've heard several OPINIONS on this issue, I'm hoping someone here can fill me in with some FACTS.
Thanks in advance.
(This has nothing to do with any specific injury or incident, I just want to find out where we as club members or officers would stand in the event that this type of situation would arise, and I'm sure that it has many times in the past, and will again).

[knight0334]

In this day and age, any and everyone is liable. No-one associated with the establishment is safe.. You, your pets, your neighbor, your dead relatives, etc could be sued for an incident at the range/club.. ...they sue Jack Daniels for causing drunk driving accidents, gun makers for murders, etc.

There is no set rule as to who is liable.. Its determined after the judge/jury awards claims.. If you are attached, present as a bystander, or even breathed within the vicinity of the "accident" - theres a good chance you could be sued.

[WMG]

Back when I held office at a club this was brought up , a lawyer was consulted about the officers liability , he said YUP , you'll be the first people in court , regardless if someone shoots themselves , twists an ankle , falls off a cliff , drowns in the pond , etc , etc. It was suggested we incorporate which of course was the end of that and the subject dropped for some reason..... ????? Makes sense huh? We wanted to know if we were liable , found out we was ... then did nothing.

[Ryegye]

What the hell happened to this country? It is so ridiculous that people other than the numb skulls responsible for any mishaps can be held accountable. If some scum bag murders someone with a firearm how is it the fault of the manufacturer. If some idiot shoots himself or someone else at a range how is it the fault of any of the club officers or members? What happened to personal responsibility? I can only imagine what this country will look like 50 years from now. I'm sure we will all be living in a wonderful nanny state where none of us are responsible for our own actions because all of our decisions will be made for us the good people in the government.

[PocketProtector]

Amen to that !!

[WMG]

The insurance company we were insured threw charged us a good bit MORE just for a tiny pond ,that we had in order to LOWER the fire insurance .... follow me so far?? it was talked about removing it to save some money on liability but wasn't ever done. Even tho the thing was at the time fenced in when we asked the lawyer what he thought about us NOT getting a discount with the insurance co since it was fenced in , he said it was their call to make and besides he smirked , if a kid climbs that fence and falls off you can still be sued , so THEN later the fence was taking down , why? I don't know. You are damned if you do , and damned if you don't , the insurance company breaks it off , the poor sap who hurts himself is goin break it off , etc and even if you WIN , some win that is after the legal fees
Had I been smart , I would have gone on welfare at age 18 , then I'd have it MADE and you couldn't get a dime from me and all of you would OWE ME , but like a lot of my best ideas they come to me to late

[mikepro8]

Rule of thumb:
Anyone can be sued for anything at anytime by anyone. EXCEPT for judges... you cant sue them. My major beef with the criminal justice system.... everyone is liable for their actions - not the guys and gals in the black robes!

[PeteG]

Originally Posted by mauser

If someone is at a shooting range and does something that causes injury or death to himself or someone else, or happens to be injured by an unsafe situation of some sort that is no fault of their own, there will surely be insurance claims and law suits.
The insurance part should be fairly straightforward.
When the affected/injured parties settle the insurance issue and the law suits are filed, who else can be held liable?
Could it be the owner of the facility where the incident happened?
Could the club officers also be included in litigation?
What about active members?
Will incorporating (LLC or variation thereof) protect the owner and/or officers and members?
Is there some sort of built in immunity whereby incorporation isn't needed for protection?
I've heard several OPINIONS on this issue, I'm hoping someone here can fill me in with some FACTS.
Thanks in advance.
(This has nothing to do with any specific injury or incident, I just want to find out where we as club members or officers would stand in the event that this type of situation would arise, and I'm sure that it has many times in the past, and will again).

Dear "Mauser":

Every one of the responses (and rants) that precedes this one is full of inaccuracies.

If you are engaged in any firearms related activity and you are concerned about liabiliy, I strongly recommend you consult a lawyer in your locale. It may cost a few hundred dollars, but there are good reasons to get your advice from a professional who is responsible to you and only to you:

(1) It will take some time to understand all of the facts and circumstances about which you are concerned. You have given a general outline, but one cannot predict a legal outcome without knowing all of the factual details which may apply. It is not practical to provide or obtain that kind of information on a message board, and some of the required information would be very personal, and you would not likely want to publish it in any event. (This is why attorney/client communications are privileged.)

(2) A lawyer you hire will be responsible, professionally and financially, for what he or she tells you. When you retain the lawyer, be sure to ask whether he or she carries professional liabiliy insurance. Many do not.

Even then, what a lawyer will give you is an opinion. No lawyer can foretell the future. What we do is predict what officials, including courts, are likely to do, based upon cases and statutes. Good lawyers have the knowledge, foresight, experience and instincts to make good predictions; bad lawyers do not. I suggest using a good one. Good ones tend to charge more, because their time is more in demand.

Think of it this way: if your child needed heart surgery, would you shop for the cheapest doctor in town?

As a general proposition, every person owes every other person a duty of reasonable care. Those duties then vary, depending upon the existence of any special relationships between people. For example, the duty the owner of a shooting facility to a business invitee will be different than he will owe to a trespasser.

I can tell you that, under Pennsylvania law, any person who ventures out in public carrying a gun owes those around him the highest duty of care, not only to avoid directly injuring others through negligence, but also to avoid allowing others who may be feeble-minded, intemperate or of criminal disposition to get acces to his weapon and hurt someone else. All possible precautions must be taken, or you will be responsible for any adverse consequences.

This falls short of strict liablity ("strict liablity" means you are liable for untoward consequences no matter what precautions you may have taken). But in the event an innocent person is injured as a consequence of the discharge of one's firearm, one who handles firearms must must be prepared to show he did everything within his power to prevent the accident or intervening criminal act or act of insanity that caused the injury.

This gives rise to some fairly interesting questions concerning such things as open carry, and who may have access to one's firearm. Unfortunately (for me), I cannot have such enlightening conversations on gun fora, because all of the graduates of the "Rush Limbaugh University of Bitching and Whining Victims of the System" make it impossible.

PeteG

[mikepro8]

What is so inaccurate about my statement, PeteG?
Nice speech, but you didnt answer the question.... "who can be held liable?" The short answer is EVEVERYONE (except judges) can be held liable, or sued for that matter, in civil court. People can sue gunmakers for someone using their product wrongfully. Bartenders can be sued for giving a person "too many drinks." Everytime you leave your house, you CAN be sued for just about anything. Sad, but true. Whether or not somone is liable for the action can only be determined by a jury in PA.

[Rule10b5]

Originally Posted by mikepro8

What is so inaccurate about my statement, PeteG?
Nice speech, but you didnt answer the question.... "who can be held liable?" The short answer is EVEVERYONE (except judges) can be held liable, or sued for that matter, in civil court. People can sue gunmakers for someone using their product wrongfully. Bartenders can be sued for giving a person "too many drinks." Everytime you leave your house, you CAN be sued for just about anything. Sad, but true. Whether or not somone is liable for the action can only be determined by a jury in PA.

I'm sorry, but you're misinformed.

Not "everyone" but judges can be sued.

Many professions or employees of government entities have immunity against certain types of civil actions predicated on acts they committed during the course of their employment. Police, Firemen, District Attorneys, Public Defenders, individual employees of state agencies responsible for public projects, Attorneys General, Judges -- all of these folks have limited or full immunity for otherwise tortious conduct committed during the course of their employment.

And that immunity arises only for lawful acts the course of employment. You can sue a judge for running into your car, just not for making a decision on the bench. You can sue a policeman for running into your car while off duty, but he's personally protected if he does it while on duty.

And, quite frankly, PeteG gave a very accurate and substantive treatment of general liability in Pennsylvania -- he should be applauded for it.

In any case, regarding the original poster's questions:

If someone is at a shooting range and does something that causes injury or death to himself or someone else, or happens to be injured by an unsafe situation of some sort that is no fault of their own, there will surely be insurance claims and law suits.
The insurance part should be fairly straightforward.

The insurance part is never straightforward. Insurance companies are usually the main impediment to the resolution of any case -- whether it is a good case or a bad one, the insurance company will make trouble. Insurance companies make money by taking more in premiums than they pay in claims -- it's the nature of the business.

When the affected/injured parties settle the insurance issue and the law suits are filed, who else can be held liable?

Many people, it depends on who has a duty, to whom it is owed, and the circumstances under which that duty was or was not executed.

Could it be the owner of the facility where the incident happened?

Yes, absolutely. Clubs have a duty to ensure that facilities open to the public are safe and that reasonable and adequate measures are taken to protect invitees and the general public.

Could the club officers also be included in litigation?

Yes, if they are control persons with respect to the particular conduct or duty, the reasonable execution of which would have prevented or otherwise ameliorated the harm at issue.

What about active members?

No, unless they hold a partnership interest in the club, or personally took part in the conduct giving rise to the harm.

Will incorporating (LLC or variation thereof) protect the owner and/or officers and members?

No, if the conduct of the officers (or non-conduct) caused or contributed to the harm at issue. No, if the member directly or personally took part in the conduct giving rise to the harm.

Is there some sort of built in immunity whereby incorporation isn't needed for protection?

Not that I know of.