Question for field owners

[ASA_Jax]

What legal protections do you take? I have been told for a single game Insurance is about $2000.00. Ive also been told that Waivers are useless for the most part so im confused as to how these fields continue to run with such a high risk of injury. Any insight would be appreciated.

[Brian McIlmoyle]

Originally Posted by ASA_Jax

What legal protections do you take? I have been told for a single game Insurance is about $2000.00. Ive also been told that Waivers are useless for the most part so im confused as to how these fields continue to run with such a high risk of injury. Any insight would be appreciated.

Most Liability Policies have a participant exclusion, in that the insurance is not designed to cover claims made by people who agree to participate on the field. So if someone who agrees to play, and accepts the inherant risks involved.. they really can't blame you if they get hurt doing what they agreed they wanted to do.

Insurance is for 3rd party claims... people who are not participants but none the less get injured due to your actions.
For example, a person who "wanders on" to a field while a game is ongoing and gets injured.

Waivers generally can be defeated by any Personal Injury lawyer worth spending money on... as Lawdog can attest to ....

However they can be effective for spurious claims as a deterrant for the "proffesionally injured"

The policy I carry covers my Corporation, directors and Officers for claims arrising from third parties...in all of the training activities I do.

Further protection is provided by making sure everyone knows what they are getting into.. and by being carefull who you allow to participate.

This is why I do not run "public games" at my field.. and only allow people who I know.. or are vouched for by someone I know to participate...

In the end Field owners and game hosts are exposed to substantial potential liability.. that really can't be mitigated...

This is why I do not hold any assets in my name... so that should I be the target of litigation I am not a rich target.

[Lawdog]

I would not purchase a policy that had a specific exclusion for coverage for all participants. I would want a policy that protects me against all third party claims, ie all players, by-passers etc. There is also a big difference between the type of policy you need if you are running a business that is open to the public, one that is invite only (but still charging) and one that is just for you and some friends who are not being charged for profit.

Waivers are a deterrant to the legally uneducated only. When someone calls me with a good claim but says they signed a waiver, I say "come on in, there's a way around that for sure."

LD

[TokyoSeven]

Oh waivers, how flimsy they truly are, like attempting to shield yourself from flame with a piece of tissue paper.

Out of sheer curiosity I called my broker and inquired about proper insurance as well and basically recieved the same info that I read above, the information varied but as it stands its essentailly the same. So yeah +1.

[Capt. T/O]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Waivers are a deterrant to the legally uneducated only. When someone calls me with a good claim but says they signed a waiver, I say "come on in, there's a way around that for sure."

LD

hahahahahahahaha

so true

[ASA_Jax]

Ok so when it comes right down to it. Running a field has way to many risks. So why do people play these risks? To me it doesnt make any sense why big business use waivers at all. If they are so flimsy and useless why are they still used? False sense of security maybe?

[Brian McIlmoyle]

Originally Posted by ASA_Jax

Ok so when it comes right down to it. Running a field has way to many risks. So why do people play these risks? To me it doesnt make any sense why big business use waivers at all. If they are so flimsy and useless why are they still used? False sense of security maybe?

A waivor establishes informed consent.... so for example if someone decides that the welt on their ass from a bb warrants litigation for "pain and suffering"
The relevant defense would be.... he was informed that being shot with bbs would happen... so there is no negligence on the part of the host/ owner for this event.

If conversly the same fellow is shot in the ass and while he ran away blinded by the pain fell in a hole that had not be marked or defined in any way so that someone would have a reasonable expectation that it could be seen would have a case for negligence on the part of the host/ owner that a waivor would not provide any defense to.

[TokyoSeven]

In simple terms.

You sign a form stating that you know what your getting into and that if you tard hatch your self its your own darn fault.

Unless its a freak accident, like if owner of said field knew of a tree that was tipping over and didnt take care of it, and said player was crushed by said tree, then its a whole diffrent story.

[Lawdog]

The primary use of waivers is as a deterrant. The injured chap says to himself "I signed a waiver, I cannot sue. I am out of luck." and never bothers to call the lawyer.

LD

[Skruface]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

The primary use of waivers is as a deterrant. The injured chap says to himself "I signed a waiver, I cannot sue. I am out of luck." and never bothers to call the lawyer.

LD

I do believe part of the issue is that in Canada, we do not have the legal capability to sign away our rights, correct? We have some basic rights that cannot be denied, waiver or not.

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by Skruface

I do believe part of the issue is that in Canada, we do not have the legal capability to sign away our rights, correct? We have some basic rights that cannot be denied, waiver or not.

That is part of the issue in provinces that have the equivilent of the Occupier's Liablity Act, but not a big part of it.

I don't want to bore anyone with a big legal lecture, but the courts will read all sorts of unspoken things into contracts, especially commercial contracts where there may appear to be a inequality of bargaining power. They will read in things like an assumption that the service provider will provide competant guidance, reasonable safety measures etc.

You through in my good friend "contra proferendum (sp?)" and the modern interpretation of the "volenti" doctrine and you are good to go.

LD

[ASA_Jax]

Sorry to bring this thread back to the surface but i had one last question i wanted to ask.

How many private field owners actually HAVE insurance??

[Cushak]

Just read through this and this got me wondering:

A waivor establishes informed consent.... so for example if someone decides that the welt on their ass from a bb warrants litigation for "pain and suffering"
The relevant defense would be.... he was informed that being shot with bbs would happen... so there is no negligence on the part of the host/ owner for this event.

If conversly the same fellow is shot in the ass and while he ran away blinded by the pain fell in a hole that had not be marked or defined in any way so that someone would have a reasonable expectation that it could be seen would have a case for negligence on the part of the host/ owner that a waivor would not provide any defense to.

So the waiver informed the player that BB's will hurt. So he can't sue for BB's hurting, he signed a knowledge and consent form. (I believe that's what's being said) What if the field owner included a line in the waiver that said:

"Also note, there are many natural hazards across our fields, stag area, and pathways such as trees, falling branches or trees, thick undergrowth or plantlife which may result in a fall, or other injury, unmarked play areas (one may be shot by accident without being in a game), holes in the ground, sharp drop offs, swift moving rivers, poisionous plants, animals and insects. By signing this waiver you acknowledge the presence of these listed hazards. These hazards are left here to encourage as realistic a "play battle" as possible. Players are strongly encouraged to take it slow, and keep an eye out for potential or real hazards so as to avoid injury, or in the case of blindness use senses, or communication with other people to avoid potential, and real, hazards.. Should the player choose to disregard that suggestion, he/she does so at his/her own risk"

Would such a statement make the field owner no longer responsible for someone falling in a hole while running away? (Or other such situations?

[ASA_Jax]

Good question, i want to know the answer as well.

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by Cushak

Just read through this and this got me wondering:


So the waiver informed the player that BB's will hurt. So he can't sue for BB's hurting, he signed a knowledge and consent form. (I believe that's what's being said) What if the field owner included a line in the waiver that said:

"Also note, there are many natural hazards across our fields, stag area, and pathways such as trees, falling branches or trees, thick undergrowth or plantlife which may result in a fall, or other injury, unmarked play areas (one may be shot by accident without being in a game), holes in the ground, sharp drop offs, swift moving rivers, poisionous plants, animals and insects. By signing this waiver you acknowledge the presence of these listed hazards. These hazards are left here to encourage as realistic a "play battle" as possible. Players are strongly encouraged to take it slow, and keep an eye out for potential or real hazards so as to avoid injury, or in the case of blindness use senses, or communication with other people to avoid potential, and real, hazards.. Should the player choose to disregard that suggestion, he/she does so at his/her own risk"

Would such a statement make the field owner no longer responsible for someone falling in a hole while running away? (Or other such situations?

Asking for direct legal advice on the internet is like ordering the veggie special at Carnivore's restaurant. http://www.africanmeccasafaris.com/k.../carnivore.asp

(great f'n restaurant by the way).

Drafting your own waiver is downright foolish, and that clause above would get you tossed out of law school if you handed it in. Electricty for electrians, plumbing for plumbers...don't play lawyer and expect it to not blow up in your face at some point.

Besides, despite what others may post, waivers are almost worthless. If you have to use one, and are too stupid/bitter/poor/unmotivated/cocky/unwise/reckless to have a lawyer draft you one, you should get one from your insurer or use one that has been drafted by a lawyer or insurer.

LD

PS- just because you warn someone about a hazard does not mean they cannot sue you because they fall prey to it. As I think I posted elsewhere go read the Occupier's Liability Act (if you are in Ontario) and the cases on volenti, get a basic grasp on contra proferentem and then we can discuss why waivers are just peices of paper. Also read Malcolm and Waldick from the SCC, and then think about how that applies to Airsoft. Seriously.