Clubs, dogs, and liability

[billfish678]

Hi all

I am a member of a paddling/kyaking club with a hundred members give or take.

There is a “controversy” in the club recently.

Occasionally someone brings thier dog paddling as well. And some folks don’t like dogs or dog behaviours. Not to say that sometimes dogs/dog owners dont behave as well as they should.

But that aspect is not what I’d like some input on here about.

Some folks bring up a liability issue.

Sure, if a dog bites you, sue the owner, sounds pretty standard to me.

However, some folks are worried about the “club” getting sued as well. First, the club has no real assets besides some party supplies, a couple cubic feet of books/videos and maybe a thousand or two in money from dues for expenses.

I can’t really imagine a lawyer salivating over that.

I guess you could sue all the club members, but I don’t really see that going very far.

So is this a real concern for club members? I mean anything is POSSIBLE, but is it a PRACTICAL concern?

It seems to me that the club or its members would only have any significant liability if the very act of bring a dog made paddling itself dangerous. Or perhaps if a particular dog/owner had exhibited dangerous behaviour in the past and nothing was done about it.

And even if there is some non-zero risk of liability due to someone bringing a dog, the risk of liability from drownings, snakes, alligators, the fact club has safety rules, children are brought along, trips are rated for ease/difficulty, and probably another dozen things, IMHO the risk from these are orders of magnitude higher.

For now I am calling “Bigfoot lawsuit” on this one.

We are in florida by the way

thanks for any input!

[casdave]

Maybe the risks are much greater from other sources, however, dog owners have assets.
First thing lawyers seem to be interested in is the gold seam.

[Tim_T-Bonham.net]

It may depend on the state where you live.

Here in Minnesota, there is a state law that shields volunteer Directors of a non-profit organization from losing lawsuits like this under most situations. You can still be sued, but the Judge ought to dismiss it – but you may still have had to pay legal fees.

As Treasurer of such an organization, I argued against spending money on a million-dollar liability insurance policy, on much the same reasoning as you. I said our club has so few assets, no lawyer would ever take on a case to sue us. But if we had a million-dollar insurance police, souing us would be worthwhile for a lawyer.

[billfish678]

thanks for the input folks.

yeah, without assets, I can’t imagine a lawyer going after “the club”. And even if they did BFD. We can dissolve, reorganize, double the dues for the first year, and we’d be back in bussiness.

What I am more worried about (well, I am not) is EVERY member of the club being individually listed in a lawsuit.

The dog owner I can see.

Mayyybee the officers, but that even seems a stretch to me.

And individual members? That seems like a REAL stretch.

To hold a whole group, that is basically nothing more than just a social network that allows people with a common interest to find each other, responsible for allowing somebody to do something (bringing a dog somewhere) that is virtually a social norm just boogles my mind.

Yeah, if it was something really irresponsible/odd like an official policy allowing the pilot of a sky diving club to fly with his free range death tarantulas (sure they are deadly poisnous, but they never bite!..said right as they bite him on takeoff, killing everyone on board). Legally, that I could possibly, maybe see if I squint real hard. But dogs, that you run into everywhere, that a very large fraction of the population has and does…being held liable as a GROUP for that?

I was really hoping someone here with good google fu or law data base fu could actually find a lawsuit where a run of the mill activity club was even sued (as a group) for a dogs behaviour, much less actually found financially responsible. Particularly in Florida.

Surely, this has been an issue/non-issue for many other kinds of such small informal “activity clubs” have had to address.

An as an aside, all these kind of folks that think their measely handfull of Washingtons actually entitles them to anything other than a crappy newsletter (not that our newletter is crappy) with a membership list from a club can go…well…do something really painful and unpleasant to themselves.

thanks again for the input

[anson2995]

@t-bonham@scc.net

It may depend on the state where you live.

Here in Minnesota, there is a state law that shields volunteer Directors of a non-profit organization from losing lawsuits like this under most situations. You can still be sued, but the Judge ought to dismiss it – but you may still have had to pay legal fees.

As Treasurer of such an organization, I argued against spending money on a million-dollar liability insurance policy, on much the same reasoning as you. I said our club has so few assets, no lawyer would ever take on a case to sue us. But if we had a million-dollar insurance police, souing us would be worthwhile for a lawyer.

The OP ever said where e lived, and I think that makes a big difference.

Many states don’t offer this shield, and in those cases the liability insurance makes a lot of sense for precisely the same reason. The absence of any organizational insurance would encourage the plaintiff to go after the club’s officers, who most likely have assets. This is exactly why most insurance carriers offer D&O coverage (directors and officers)

I was president of a youth football organization for five years. I think it cost us less than $200 for D&O coverage. If someone filed a lawsuit against us, it would cost 10 times that much just to get it thrown out of court.

Does the club have any sort of insurance? Forget about dogs… what if someone drowns?

[Fetchund]

I’m assuming your club has members sign a waiver as they join or at their first event - have that checked for thoroughness. I know we had to sign one when we started with our local paddling group. And yes, we have dogs join us, too!

[Muffin]

There are many risks in paddling. Dogs are just one of them, so simply treat the dog based risks as you would any other risks – identify the risk, see that it is covered in your insurance, see that it is set out in your waiver, see that you discuss it a day or two in advance with the participants, and train to mitigate the risk (e.g. not tying the dog to the boat, not dumping when the dog jumps out or trys to climb back aboard, and training the dog to lean correctly for eddy turns and surfing, and most importantly, ensuring that paddlers are trained to not put themselves at risk to save their dogs). Seems like a bit of a non-issue to me – the sort of thing that only anal wanna-be paddlers fuss over. I’d be more concerned about paddling with a person who worries about dog-based liability than I’d be actually paddling with a pooch. But then I’m biased:

Sassy the Wonder Dog on the Kipawa: Kipawa River Quebec Buttonhook wild water kayak kayaking photographs

Morrigaine the Ship’s Cat on Superior: Ships Cat

As far as dealing with paddling liability goes, here’s part of a post of mine to the paddlewise.net listserver a decade back:

When it comes down to waivers, they let the defendant use the defence
of voluntary assumption of risk. They only come into the matter once
it looks like the defendant was negligent. Obviously the best way to
stop an action is to avoid being negligent, rather than to be
negligent and pray that a waiver will protect you. Consequently,
insurers are now requiring clubs to implement risk management plans,
and independant of the insurance issue, many clubs are requiring
formal, ongoing training and certification for trip leaders, the filing
of trip plans, and the preparing of emergency plans.

If the worst has happened and you find youself needing to be saved by
a waiver, you have to worry about a number of things. First, the
risk which you claim has been voluntarily assumed by the plaintiff
must have been expressly stated in the waiver. You have to be pretty
specific about what risk is involved, but if you get too broad then
you run the risk of the court saying that the contract was too
one-sided, and should be construed strictly against you because what
you were demanding was unreasonable or oppressive.
This gets very difficult for businesses, where the courts are
concerned about the bargaining advantage a business might have over a
client.

You also have to pay attention to when the waiver was signed. If you have
your client sign it too early, before she could know the risks, then
it is void. If it is signed after the formation of the contract, then
it is too late. Either way you are cooked.

To make it more difficult, you also have to watch out for prior inconsistent oral
representation – for example if you say to Jackie that your kayaking
lessons are safe, so she decides to take one with you, your waiver
against her might not hold up due to your earlier assertion.

In short, waivers give you a shot at a defence, but the courts will
try to find a way of tossing them. Use a waiver, but don’t depend on
a waiver.

The next area of voluntary assumption of risk concerns implied
assumption of risk. Waiver or not, when Jackie takes a header, you
will argue that she knew that kayaking was dangerous and that she
impliedly assumed the risk. This works quite well for minor stuff
which you can expect to encounter by mererly participating – the
expected swims, bumps and grinds. It does not work for
extradordinary stuff, for example, a leader taking Jackie down
something hellacious on her first lesson, or a leader failing to warn
Jackie of an obstacle that could cause her grief. As you have
probably already noticed, a lot depends on Jackie’s competence, on
the leader’s competence, and on the implied relationship between
them. If Jackie is a new paddler and you run her through class IV, you
probably are negligent. If Jackie is a class V padder and you run
her through class II, you probably are not negligent. It really
depend on the circumstances. Looking at the circumstances, what
hazards are coincident with mere participation, and what hazards
involve negligence? There is no clear answer.

In conclusion, don’t count on anything getting you off if you have
been negligent. Arguing voluntary assumption of risk via express
waiver terms or via implied assumptions is a last resort which may
get you off, but should not be depended upon. The more negligent
your behaviour, the less chance you have.

[billfish678]

thanks muffin and fechund!

I’ll don’t have time at the moment to fully digest all the details…but I will later this evening.

though I do agree liability other than dog related is way higher in the real risk scheme of things…at least IMO…

I think the big arguement for the “anti-dog” folks is one, that dogs represent a significant liability (which I doubt, at least compared to other things). And secondly, anything bad that happens caused by a dog will result in liability for the club (doubtful), the officers (even more doubtfull), and most importantly individual members (besides the dog owner themselves…very highly doubtful).

If I am way off on these views, I’d really like to hear about it!

As a sort of an aside, one member has already claimed he/she would actually “sue the club” if they were bitten by a dog on a trip.

While they haven’t yet expounded on the particular circumstances for said lawsuit, I will certainly tell you that definitely makes me hesitant to have them on ANY trip I lead, particpate in, or even am within rock throwing distance of.

I hope their statement is internet bravado…because otherwise I am afraid that will really come back to haunt them and open up a real can of worms for the club.

Would you want be around a club member thats threatened to sue you (and everyone else?) if things go bad over something that you/everyone else have no real control over? Would you want to be a member of a club that has a member like that?!

Sure makes ME think twice!

thanks again for the input!

[Billdo]

Absolutely this is a liability problem for the club and its officers. If someone were injured by a dogbite at an event, there is a significant risk that the injured person would sue not only the dog owner, but the club and all individuals responsible for organizing the event. This could include all club officers and the trip leader(s), as well as the club itself.

Further, when someone sues, they don’t necessarily investigate beforehand whether the defendants have any assets. It is very easy to name an additional defendant, and a club organizing an event is someone that would undoubtedly added to the suit. Also, depending on state law, the members and/or officers may have some liability for the debts of an unincorporated organization.

It seems to me that, as Muffin mentioned, you have a much bigger risk than dogbite. Paddling/kayaking is an adventure sport and as such contains the risk of injury or even death for its participants. Most boaters (I’m one) know of the risks and understand the possibility of coming out of the day scraped up or much, much worse. Further, even the most skilled and safe paddlers face the risk of having something happen due to something stupid done by their fellow boaters.

If someone is seriously injured while paddling, there is a good likelihood that they will sue the trip organizers, including the club and its officers and trip leaders. Even if the trip is well and safely lead, the fact that some people on the water can (will) do stupid and dangerous things puts everyone at risk. And looked at in hindsight, particularly through the lens of litigation, there will always be “what if” things that the trip organizers will be faulted for.

As such, it is important to consider liability issues and insurance in any sort of club activity. Directors and officers insurance protects club leaders from being personally sued for the club leadership decision making they are involved in, but does not protect the club against being held liable, and it will probably not protect individuals against liability for things they actually personally participated in while on the trip. What you really need is a comprehensive general liability policy.

I would look at having a comprehensive review of your whole liability situation. Waivers may be helpful as a defense somewhere down the line if you get sued, but they won’t prevent you from getting sued. Merely getting sued is a very expensive and unpleasant process, particularly if you do not have insurance. One of the most important features of insurance is that it pays for a legal defense of a claim, not only pays the damages if you are liable. Also, unless you are exceedingly compulsive about waivers, it is likely that if an incident happens, the member or guest injured will be somebody who hasn’t signed the waiver or whose waiver was misplaced.

Finally, even a member who is the greatest fan of the club and who you believe would never sue can easily change their tune once they are injured. Further, even if they intend seek to sue only the dog owner, once they engage a lawyer it is highly likely that the lawyer will strongly recommend or insist on suing all potentially liable parties, including the club and possibly the officers, trip leaders, and perhaps general membership. If, in the worst case, a death occurs, the survivors will undoubtedly not retain any good feeling toward the club and its leaders.

Unfortunately, where there is a serious injury in an adventure sport like paddling, litigation may often ensue. Although the doctrine of assumption of risk, particularly if there is a waiver, might prevent ultimate liability, it won’t avoid the risk that the club and its officers and members get embroiled in a lawsuit.

[ZenBeam]

Wouldn’t the answer depend on how active a role the club takes? That is, whether they are responsible for the kayak rentals or river rental fees or whatever, versus a simple “we’re meeting at 10:00 at the boat ramp o start. We’ll end at the downtown park.”

Also, does the club have the authority tell members not to bring their dog? If the river is free access, and afterwards you’re meeting at a park which is also public, how does the club have any authority? More importantly, could the club make the claim (in a hypothetical lawsuit) that they don’t allow people to bring dogs, but they don’t have any standing to disallow it?

[Muffin]

If someone gets bitten by a dog and makes noises about sueing, finish them off, feed them to the alligators, and deny that they were ever paddling with you. Let’s call that the deliverence model.

I trust that you have checked out insurance options, such as the American Canoe Association: http://www.americancanoe.org/insurance/insurance.lasso

[Muffin]

@Billdo

Also, unless you are exceedingly compulsive about waivers, it is likely that if an incident happens, the member or guest injured will be somebody who hasn’t signed the waiver or whose waiver was misplaced.

So true. Also, there is the problem of waivers being shoved under the participant’s nose for signing immediately before the trip which puts pressure on the participant to sign, and without the participant really understanding the risks. A pre-trip safety plan meeting preceding the signing of the waiver, and the signing of the waiver taking place a day or two before the event, can be helpful.

Obviously this raises the question of at what point does contientious attention to health and safety become overkill. When dealing with risk management, insuance companies, and waivers, there are a lot of hoops to jump through, which is why a lot of paddlers do not form formal clubs.

Trip leader John Winters has the best waiver out there:

I ____________ hereby acknowledge that John Winters, an incompetent paddler with next to no rescue skills or knowledge of the outdoors has requested my presence on this trip to provide advice and safety to his person and possessions. I acknowledge that I have forgotten more about paddling than he will ever know and that he is too stupid to pour piss out of a boot with directions on the heel and would not be going on this trip were it not for me.

If John Winters is obligated or feels obligated to rescue me or any of my possessions and incurs any injury or loss in so doing I acknowledge and accept full responsibility and agree to reimburse him, his heirs or assigns for any damages real or imagined.

Signed __________________

[Muffin]

@ZenBeam

Wouldn’t the answer depend on how active a role the club takes? That is, whether they are responsible for the kayak rentals or river rental fees or whatever, versus a simple “we’re meeting at 10:00 at the boat ramp o start. We’ll end at the downtown park.”

Yup, but keep in mind that you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t. For example, if the club was simply renting boats, would that raise the standard because they were offering someting on a professional basis, or would it lower the standard because they were only renting gear rather than providing guiding services? If the club simply set out a put-in time, would that raise the standard by showing that it was truly a club event and at the same time show negligence in the safety plan, or would it lower the standard by showing that it was not so much a formal event but simply a group of people getting together the way Dopers do in their various cities. It depends, it depends, it depends . . . that’s what this sort of litigation comes down to.

@ZenBeam

Also, does the club have the authority tell members not to bring their dog? If the river is free access, and afterwards you’re meeting at a park which is also public, how does the club have any authority? More importantly, could the club make the claim (in a hypothetical lawsuit) that they don’t allow people to bring dogs, but they don’t have any standing to disallow it?

Sure the club can prohibit the dog. Although they could not physically stop the person from tagging along, they could make it clear that the person was doing so against their expressed direction. Of course that would hurt feelings, and unless the excommunication were recorded by a cell phone video, there could still be difficulty in proving that the person had been told that he or she was not part of the group. To make matters worse, there is an unwritten code that paddlers should help out each other in emergencies. Thus if a cling-on won’t bugger off, then gets into difficulty and gets rescued by the club, it may look like the cling-on was part of the club trip.

(One season our group had problems with a cling-on – he turning up and tagged along several times despite not being invited and despite our telling him that he should not be there. Sure enough, he ended up in the hospital.)

[anson2995]

@billfish678

I think the big arguement for the “anti-dog” folks is one, that dogs represent a significant liability (which I doubt, at least compared to other things). And secondly, anything bad that happens caused by a dog will result in liability for the club (doubtful), the officers (even more doubtfull), and most importantly individual members (besides the dog owner themselves…very highly doubtful).

If I am way off on these views, I’d really like to hear about it!

I think you are way off on these views.

Firstly, if someone gets attacked by a dog at a club activity, I think the chances of a lawsuit are very close to 100%, and the likelihood that officers and individuals will be named as co-defendants is awfully high as well.

Secondly, you seem to be focusing on the idea that a dog bite won’t be serious enough to justify a lawsuit, and that the friendly nature of the club’s members would preclude anyone from suing the club. I think both views are naive.

Thirdly, whether or not a jury would ultimately find club officers or individual members financially liable is not the point. You’re focused on winning lawsuits, and you ought to be focused on avoiding lawsuits.

I’ll ask again… does the club have any liability insurance? If so, adding a D&O rider is a trivial expense. If not… well, then I’m just stunned.