Paintball legal question

[NewMagMan21]

Has anyone been sued in the sport of paintball...and I dont mean like companys sueing over patents (sp) but people sueing over assault and things like that. And the pertains to only people on the feild willingly playing.
EDIT This idea came to me after reading about Psycho Circus's ref rampage

[MedicDVG]

If you commit a battery (hit someone with malice and intent to do harm) against someone when playing paintball, you are subject to criminal prosecution just as any other person on the street.

If you make threats of bodily harm, this can be considered assault and can be criminally charged as well. This depends on the threats taht were made, and teh attitude of whomever you get as an ivestigating officer. It gets dressed up in "disorderly conduct" or "Making terroristic threats" or "Harassment" many times, but yes you can be criminally liable.

As for civil liability - hell, any yo yo with $50 bucks can file a lawsuit. :tard:

[NewMagMan21]

I mean has it happend

[Cow hunter]

i dont think so because if you go and play willingly you know you're going to get hit once and a while...... and i think they have a form (at most fields) you have to sign to protect them and other players from lawsuits

[MedicE11]

i dont think so because if you go and play willingly you know you're going to get hit once and a while...... and i think they have a form (at most fields) you have to sign to protect them and other players from lawsuits


The waiver forms in no shape, form or fashion protect other players from any type of lawsuit. The waiver is there specifically to protect the field itself.

[shartley]

The waiver forms in no shape, form or fashion protect other players from any type of lawsuit. The waiver is there specifically to protect the field itself.
And further more, to protect the field from virtually nothing in all actuality. What folks think the waivers protect the field from is far from what it actually does, in spite of what the waiver might say. And when it comes to those under the age of 18, it protects even less. I think most people would be surprised what the law says about signing away your rights, and shocked at what the law says about signing away the rights or others (such as your children).

Waivers are much like the cloak of invisibility (Eric the Red), they only work on those who are ignorant and think they have the power they claim to have. But often times that is enough to save them from a law suit…. and thus they did their job.

[thefuzz]

No police officer in their right mind would charge someone who went out and to play paintball and shot someone else who went out to play paintball (unless something maliciously violent happened). Trust me I know, I'm a cop. The only paintball players that have been charge are ones that shoot at people who do not want to be shot (ie. drive bys). Trust me I've charged kids who shoot paintball/airsoft guns at people maliciously with aggravated assault (a felony).

Plus the waiver is more of a deterrant to sue the actual paintball field than anything else. It cannot be legally held up in court because it is not a legally binding contract. I could, however, possibly be brought into show that a person who was playing paintball knew that certain injuries could occur while playing.

[Recon by Fire]

Waivers are not worth the paper they are printed on.

[Lohman446]

No police officer in their right mind would charge someone who went out and to play paintball and shot someone else who went out to play paintball (unless something maliciously violent happened). Trust me I know, I'm a cop. The only paintball players that have been charge are ones that shoot at people who do not want to be shot (ie. drive bys). Trust me I've charged kids who shoot paintball/airsoft guns at people maliciously with aggravated assault (a felony).

Plus the waiver is more of a deterrant to sue the actual paintball field than anything else. It cannot be legally held up in court because it is not a legally binding contract. I could, however, possibly be brought into show that a person who was playing paintball knew that certain injuries could occur while playing.


I didn't know police officers made the legal decisions on who to bring charges against or not... It is very hard to get a DA to press charges against someone who participated in a sport knowing the risks, I mean can you charge someone with assault when you are tackled in the course of the game of football. If you want to get really technical you do violate state dueling laws in Michigan when playing paintball.... scarey huh?

Unless someone is injured, and likely by something they claim to not know "was part of the game" or something malicious happens (like the world cup incident) it is highly unlikely a DA is going to have the political motivation to push the issue in criminal court. Even then it is dependent on where, who the DA is, who the victim is, who the aggressors are, and any number of situations.

[thefuzz]

You've been watching too much TV....police officers make the charges, the DAs and ADAs prosecute them. Most of the time charges will be pled down to lesser charges (ie. agg assault down to simple assault) or if there is no validity to the officer's charges, then they will be dropped all together. The DAs aren't out there choosing when to arrest people and when not too. I've not charged people for crimes (mostly juveniles) because I believe other consequences (ie. Wrath of Mom) will be worse. Sometimes I do not have a choice on when to make charges (ie. Domestic Violence) because the law mandates that I must make charges.

[shartley]

You've been watching too much TV....police officers make the charges, the DAs and ADAs prosecute them. Most of the time charges will be pled down to lesser charges (ie. agg assault down to simple assault) or if there is no validity to the officer's charges, then they will be dropped all together. The DAs aren't out there choosing when to arrest people and when not too. I've not charged people for crimes (mostly juveniles) because I believe other consequences (ie. Wrath of Mom) will be worse. Sometimes I do not have a choice on when to make charges (ie. Domestic Violence) because the law mandates that I must make charges.
As a former police officer I have to point out that some of what you posted was not quite the whole story.

Most of the time charges will be pled down to lesser charges (ie. agg assault down to simple assault) or if there is no validity to the officer's charges, then they will be dropped all together.

… or if they feel it is not worth the time or money to go to trial vs the outcome.

The DAs aren't out there choosing when to arrest people and when not too.

…. No they are not. But they do often dictate who is and who is not. When a DA has an agenda they often use the police as their tool to accomplish it. But you are correct, it is MOST often at the discretion of the officer on scene whether an arrest is made or charges are filed (minus the mandatory situations you made brief mention of). And I am sure you will also verify that most of the time many more charges are filed than what the officer expects to actually make it past the DA.

But you nailed it on the head when you said “you’ve been watching too much TV”. TV and the movies has made a society that thinks they know how the law and law enforcement works….. but most of the time they don’t really have a clue. I don’t mean this as an insult but only as an observation.

[thefuzz]

Man I guess I'm just blessed in my county because the DAs and ADAs hardly, if ever, refuse to press charges because of monetary reasons. Also I ask for the charges that actually happened, and usually get it from the Magistrate. The magistrates trust that we're making good charges out there, and 99.9% of the time we are.

[shartley]

Man I guess I'm just blessed in my county because the DAs and ADAs hardly, if ever, refuse to press charges because of monetary reasons. Also I ask for the charges that actually happened, and usually get it from the Magistrate. The magistrates trust that we're making good charges out there, and 99.9% of the time we are.Yes it seems you are blessed….. be thankful.

[CrimsonGhost]

Yes it seems you are blessed….. be thankful.

Be VERY VERY VERY thankful . You could work in a place like...San Fran , or the rest of the Bay are for that matter. Drug charges...almost ALWAYS dropped , assults on officers...usualy dumbed down to lesser charges...and they wonder why we want more protection under the law.

Then again, possesion is usualy just a probable cause thing to nail them with other things.

Meh, sorry for the ramble.

Best thing to do with the paintball assult bit. Hope the officer on views it OR there is video tape of it that you can get your hands on.

Its a tough deal to make a case when something happen ON FIELD...(for reasons mentioned above) ...if it was in the parking lot and this thing went down...different ball game. The refs may have a chance IF SOMONE pushes it...but most of the time (ca wise) Unless there is a MAJOR injury ...no one does.The way it went down and how far the Company that is running the event and the Refs involved feel about pushing it will make the difference.
Civil case though...hooo boy. Thats a different ball of wax.
They may not serve jail time but, They may wish they had. :cheers:

[Lohman446]

You've been watching too much TV....police officers make the charges, the DAs and ADAs prosecute them. Most of the time charges will be pled down to lesser charges (ie. agg assault down to simple assault) or if there is no validity to the officer's charges, then they will be dropped all together. The DAs aren't out there choosing when to arrest people and when not too. I've not charged people for crimes (mostly juveniles) because I believe other consequences (ie. Wrath of Mom) will be worse. Sometimes I do not have a choice on when to make charges (ie. Domestic Violence) because the law mandates that I must make charges.

:rolleyes: Yeh, cause I'm an idiot and have no understanding of any system. At least in my county, it is the DA that decides to push charges through the court system or not, while an officer on the scene generally has the discretion to arrest or not it is the prosecuting attorney who determines if those offenders are ever indicted or stand trial on charges. I have enough experience with the system to have a base understanding of it... honest. Around here an officer files a report, arrests at there discretion, and then it is the prosecutor who decides if they are indicting someone or making someone stand trial based on the information in that report.

While I understand that most of the time the officer has discretion on if something goes forward or not, there are people farther up the system that have more of a say in it.

Nice try on the watching too much TV though :D

[KRAKMT]

I just did a search of lexis (legal database) for the term "paintball". The database covers both federal and state cases but only cases appealed from the underlying district court. The search returned 130 cases. Some examples were officers shooting a person who pointed a "gun" the headnotes referenced bb gun and paintball. Just read the two sentence blirb. Another was the smart parts micro processor case. BLah Blah Blah.


As for who charges- it depends.

If it is a misdemeanor/ traffic the charging document is the ticket or citation. Officer charges DA prosecutes.

Felony is a different story. Here we have two ways to charge either a information/affidavit produced by the DA(County Attorney) or a grand jury(never used but in statute.

I watch too much TV myself ;)

[KRAKMT]

An interesting case
Appellant challenged the Polk County District Court (Minnesota), which convicted him of drive-by shooting, two counts of felon in possession of a firearm, and second-degree assault.


OVERVIEW: Appellant was convicted in trial court of drive-by shooting, two counts of felon in possession of a firearm, and second-degree assault. Appellant challenged, claiming trial court error in determining that the paintball gun used to commit the alleged offenses qualified as a firearm and a dangerous weapon. The court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in finding appellant guilty of drive-by shooting, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and in finding appellant guilty of second-degree assault because the paintball gun was not inherently a dangerous weapon as it was not designed as a weapon calculated or likely to harm, and it was not used by appellant in a manner that transformed it into a dangerous weapon.


OUTCOME: Appellant's conviction reversed because the paintball gun used to commit the alleged offenses was not inherently a dangerous weapon as it was not designed as a weapon calculated or likely to harm, and it was not used by appellant in a manner that transformed it into a dangerous weapon.

[Lohman446]

An interesting case
Appellant challenged the Polk County District Court (Minnesota), which convicted him of drive-by shooting, two counts of felon in possession of a firearm, and second-degree assault.


OVERVIEW: Appellant was convicted in trial court of drive-by shooting, two counts of felon in possession of a firearm, and second-degree assault. Appellant challenged, claiming trial court error in determining that the paintball gun used to commit the alleged offenses qualified as a firearm and a dangerous weapon. The court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in finding appellant guilty of drive-by shooting, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and in finding appellant guilty of second-degree assault because the paintball gun was not inherently a dangerous weapon as it was not designed as a weapon calculated or likely to harm, and it was not used by appellant in a manner that transformed it into a dangerous weapon.


OUTCOME: Appellant's conviction reversed because the paintball gun used to commit the alleged offenses was not inherently a dangerous weapon as it was not designed as a weapon calculated or likely to harm, and it was not used by appellant in a manner that transformed it into a dangerous weapon.

Wow... I would not have guessed that one, obviously every state / situation is different but that is a nice factoid to know. Thanks :D

[KRAKMT]

Or this one for Lohman:

COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DISTRICT, WRIT DIVISION FOUR

140 S.W.3d 280; 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1111


August 3, 2004, Filed

PRIOR HISTORY: [**1] Writ of Prohibition. Cause No. 03CC-001692. Circuit Court of St. Louis County.

DISPOSITION: Preliminary Order in Prohibition made absolute; respondent's motion to seal exhibit granted.


CASE SUMMARY

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Respondent judge of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, ordered relator parents "to produce any and all copies of the contents of the social file of their son which were in their possession" in a negligent supervision action advanced on behalf of a boy injured by the parents' son. The parents filed a petition for writ of prohibition.


OVERVIEW: The injured minor alleged that the parents' son shot him in the eye with a paintball gun as a direct and proximate result of the parents' negligent supervision. During discovery, the injured child sought documents relating to juvenile proceedings that were conducted with regard to the matter. The trial judge ordered the parents to produce documents, including a deputy juvenile officer's investigation and a psychological evaluation. The appellate court noted that a purpose of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 211.321 (2000) was to prevent a broad, unrestricted use of juvenile records by the general public, and that the obvious underlying purpose of the statutory requirement of confidentiality and limited disclosure was to protect the child. The appellate court held that it was in the parents' son's best interest not to have the documents subject to the trial judge's order to be made public, and was in accord with the spirit of the juvenile code. The appellate court concluded that the trial judge clearly exceeded his jurisdiction in entering such an order.

[11 Bravo]

[QUOTE=thefuzz]
The DAs aren't out there choosing when to arrest people and when not too.QUOTE]

I am also a former police officer, and DAs can and do direct the arrest of individuals. Not in every instance, but you can bet if the DA tells an officer to arrest someone, that officers is going to do it.

[KRAKMT]

Another that shows nagitive history(meaning the court or another court disagreed). So it is not good law(yes judges make law all the time- that is how our system works- anyone that believes judges should not make laws has a political ax to grind and does not understand the constitution... sorry.) but a fact example.


On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Middlesex County, FJ-0570-02.

DISPOSITION: Conviction reversed, violation of probation charge vacated, and matter remanded.


CASE SUMMARY

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant, a juvenile, pled guilty to the charge of unlawful possession of a weapon in the fourth degree. The Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Middlesex County, accepted the plea. Based on this conviction, defendant also pled guilty to a violation of a prior probation. Defendant appealed.


OVERVIEW: Defendant shot a paintball gun at a car. On appeal, defendant argued that there was an inadequate factual basis for his plea. The appellate court ruled that a paintball gun could have qualified as a weapon under N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:39-5d since it had the capacity of inflicting serious bodily injury. However, the offense of unlawful possession of a weapon was only committed if the object was possessed in circumstances not manifestly appropriate for such lawful uses the object may have had. At least one additional incriminating circumstance, aside from the bare possession, was necessary. Defendant possessed a paintball gun that he shot at the car, but no other facts were brought out. Defendant's use of the paintball gun, even if not lawful, posed no danger of serious bodily injury to anyone. There was no correlation between what enabled a paintball gun to fall within the definition of a weapon under N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:39-1r and the circumstances surrounding the possession that were manifestly inappropriate for such lawful uses it had. There was a total absence of a likely threat of harm to others, and a factual insufficiency to sustain the conviction.


OUTCOME: The conviction on the violation of unlawful possession of a weapon was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings. The sentence resulting from the violation of probation charge was vacated and that case was remanded for resentencing.

Here is the neagtive history I mentioned
179 N.J. 475, *; 846 A.2d 1222, **;
2004 N.J. LEXIS 460, ***


STATE OF NEW JERSEY, IN THE INTEREST OF G.C.

A-7 September Term 2003

SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY

179 N.J. 475; 846 A.2d 1222; 2004 N.J. LEXIS 460


January 20, 2004, Argued
May 4, 2004, Decided

PRIOR HISTORY: [***1] On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported at 359 N.J. Super. 399, 820 A.2d 93 (2003). State ex rel. G.C., 359 N.J. Super. 399, 820 A.2d 93, 2003 N.J. Super. LEXIS 132 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div., 2003)


DISPOSITION: Reversed.


CASE SUMMARY

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: After shooting a paintball gun at an unoccupied automobile, defendant juvenile pled guilty to unlawful possession of a weapon, a fourth-degree offense under N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:39-5d. The Superior Court, Appellate Division (New Jersey), set aside defendant's plea. The state supreme court granted the State's petition for certification.


OVERVIEW: On appeal, the sole question was whether N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:39-5d required for conviction that defendant knowingly possess a weapon under circumstances indicating a likely threat of harm to a person. The state supreme court held that an adequate factual basis existed to support defendant's plea under N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:39-5d. The definition of "weapon" did not preclude N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:39-5d from being applied to circumstances threatening only damage to property. N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 2C:39-4d, 2C:39-5d were sufficiently related to warrant the conclusion that the legislature intended each provision to implicate either harm to a person or damage to a person's property. Thus, the phrase "circumstances not manifestly appropriate" under N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:39-5d contemplated either a threat of harm to a person or a threat of damage to property. Defendant actually fired the paintball gun at the automobile (an act technically not required for conviction).

[KRAKMT]

OK last one.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA. HONORABLE BRYAN DIXON, JUDGE.

DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED.


CASE SUMMARY

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff injured party sued defendants, a paintball facility, its owners, and the person who shot the paintball, for an eye injury he suffered after removing his goggles during a paintball game. The District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, granted summary judgment to defendants. The injured party appealed.


OVERVIEW: On appeal, the injured party argued that: (1) the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on his negligence claim; (2) the paintball shooter violated Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1364 (1991), by shooting him with a paintball gun and the paintball facility owners aided and abetted a criminal act; and (3) the trial court erred in finding that paintball was not an ultrahazardous activity. Summary judgment on the negligence claim was proper because defendants did not owe the injured party a duty to protect him from injury under the undisputed facts in the record. Assuming, that shooting a paint ball gun at another person violated § 1364, the injured party was in pari delicto with defendants. Therefore, the injured party was estopped from taking advantage of his own possibly illegal act to recover damages and the paintball facility owners were not liable for aiding and abetting a criminal act. The injured party was harmed by a paintball pellet only because he elected to remove his goggles, despite being instructed not to remove the goggles. There was not high degree of risk of harm, and any risk was eliminated by the exercise of reasonable care in wearing goggles.

:shooting: 1998 OK CIV APP 151, *; 991 P.2d 35, **;
1998 Okla. Civ. App. LEXIS 120, ***; 69 O.B.A.J. 3828

[Lohman446]

Another that shows nagitive history(meaning the court or another court disagreed). So it is not good law(yes judges make law all the time- that is how our system works- anyone that believes judges should not make laws has a political ax to grind and does not understand the constitution... sorry.) but a fact example.

Far too general - I think there is a distinct issue with federal appointed judges making laws on the spot that violates the seperation of powers - especially judges that enjoy lifelong appointments. I have an issue with activist judges. However, I also do not have to deal with a system that would be gridlocked if they did not on a day to day basis.

Interestingly enough on a state level, especially with elected judges, I see far less of a problem with it.

I can go into an interesting discussion here, but its way off topic.

[KRAKMT]

I can go into an interesting discussion here, but its way off topic.

I agree and will only say that "activist judges" is a political mantra with an agenda!
As for violating separation of powers is wrong. The Courts have made laws throughout history. Common law is judge made law. It was specifically incorporated into our system. It is true that the legislature is given the obligation to make law but every time a court decides a case it is "making law". That is the system that is being attacked. That is the difference between Civil law (Napoleonic code) and common law (English chancery/church law). To attack 'activist judges' is to ignore the very constitution that people are so vehemently claiming to protect.
:D ok I will stop.

[Marchborne]

Far too general - I think there is a distinct issue with federal appointed judges making laws on the spot that violates the seperation of powers - especially judges that enjoy lifelong appointments. I have an issue with activist judges. However, I also do not have to deal with a system that would be gridlocked if they did not on a day to day basis.

Interestingly enough on a state level, especially with elected judges, I see far less of a problem with it.

I can go into an interesting discussion here, but its way off topic.


KRAKMT -- be careful with using Lexis or Westlaw that have "negative" flags on them. Sometimes, a "negative history" just means another judge disagreed with them, so the precedent set by the first court is still good law. In other cases, an appeals court directly overruled the trial court, which means that yes, the lower court's precedent is no longer good law.

Lohman -- the "activist" judge issue is only RARELY a separation of powers issue. Judicial law is either based on a judge's interpretation of a statute (set by the legislature), or is an issue of common-law, where there is no legislative command (such as a statute). in the latter case, the judges are free to develop the law as they see fit, because the law was judicially made in the first place. For example, in Virginia, the Virginia Supreme Court has held that there is no such cause of action as "promissory estoppel," a doctrine that many other states recognize. Because this doctrine originally developed out of English common law, the supreme courts of the various states can develop it as they see fit, at least until the legislature decides to step in a pass a statute recognizing that sort of action. Then the judges switch to their other role of interpreting what the legislature has set down as law. Happens all the time.

(bias alert: yes, I am a lawyer, and yes, my father is also a federal judge).

Sorry to hijack, back to our regularly scheduled debate of paintball and assault/ battery. :argh:

[KRAKMT]

KRAKMT -- be careful with using Lexis or Westlaw that have "negative" flags on them. Sometimes, a "negative history" just means another judge disagreed with them, so the precedent set by the first court is still good law. In other cases, an appeals court directly overruled the trial court, which means that yes, the lower court's precedent is no longer good law.

:argh:

Looks like the New Jersey case was reversed by their appellate court- i just skimmed the cases as I had Lexis up. I would not profess that anyone should commit a tort based on what appears to be the law in the few cases posted. They are only posted for the specific purpose of showing how paintball has been discussed by a few courts. I repeate do not point a paintball marker at a cop or shoot your friend in the eye based on what these cases say- they are not a thorough analysis of the law in your area.

[Marchborne]

Looks like the New Jersey case was reversed by their appellate court- i just skimmed the cases as I had Lexis up. I would not profess that anyone should commit a tort based on what appears to be the law in the few cases posted. They are only posted for the specific purpose of showing how paintball has been discussed by a few courts. I repeate do not point a paintball marker at a cop or shoot your friend in the eye based on what these cases say- they are not a thorough analysis of the law in your area.

I think you're right about the NJ case, and I completely agree with what you say about folks needing to look at the law in their areas, my friend. Courts can be all over the map on these things, depending on what the state and local laws say. NEVER a good idea to point a marker at anybody, cop or not, unless you're in an active game.

As these EXAMPLE cases show, you can still possibly be liable for shooting someone with a paintball marker (if you're not in a game), even if that marker is not necessarily a "weapon" under local laws. Battery is battery, no matter what you use to "hit" someone with. You could still possibly be civilly liable to someone you hit with a pillow, if you actually managed to damage them with it (say, damaged an eye), even though the pillow would not qualify for a criminal charge of aggravated battery, as a weapon (again, a hypothetical, subject to whast your local laws are).

[thefuzz]

Well in my state Aggravated Assault is basically the intent to cause serious bodily harm or injury by any means (ie. guns, knives, cars, fists, etc.). A paintball gun can be used to, hate to be clique, "shoot your eye out." Shooting an eye out with a paintball gun is considered (atleast to me) a serious bodily injury. I really haven't run into many paintballers out there doing stuff like that, its mostly the airsoft crowd in my area.

[wanna-b-ballin']

i'm sure it can happen. hell, i could have sued before through playing paintball. in game, i was thrown to the ground by someone i had shot out; my mask flew off into some bush, and my feedneck snapped off my gun. was i pissed? hell yeah. was i hurt? not really. i just had him kicked out of the place, and i got a free feedneck from the field. i just missed a few games because of it, and got some douchebag kicked out.