PSP Impliments 15 BPS Cap; WAS Responds.

[hitech]

I insisted on a clarification from my insurance company last year. ...As long as the act is not with the intent to harm someone, with the exception of they will cover me in a justified shooting (firearm), then I'm good. We specifically discussed paintball (no I did not bring up modes of fire)...

I wonder what they would say if you asked them if you would be covered if you were knowingly using equipment that did not conform to ASTM standards and said equipment was the cause of the injury? I would really like to know, if you are willing to ask.

[Lohman446]

I wonder what they would say if you asked them if you would be covered if you were knowingly using equipment that did not conform to ASTM standards and said equipment was the cause of the injury? I would really like to know, if you are willing to ask.

I would really not like to ask because right now I'm good . If I ask they may say no. But in answer to your question, I know it covers me should I fail to follow accepted industry standards in other things that I am expected to know the standards on and an injury results - so I think the answer would be yes, I'm covered. I am not following ATSM standards with ramping, I don't mean to argue that, but I think I could argue that I am following generally accepted industry practices - especially with the new PSP rules .

Basically, as long as my intent is not to injure then I am ok. A personal liability coverage policy like mine covers accidents, stupidity, and even neglect on my part, the only thing it will not cover is an intentional act that was intended to injure / get me sued.

[hitech]

I know it covers me should I fail to follow accepted industry standards in other things that I am expected to know the standards on and an injury results - so I think the answer would be yes, I'm covered....the only thing it will not cover is an intentional act that was intended to injure / get me sued.

But does it cover you if you KNOWINGLY fail to follow accepted industry safety standards? Could that be considered intent via willful disregard?

[Lohman446]

But does it cover you if you KNOWINGLY fail to follow accepted industry safety standards? Could that be considered intent via willful disregard?

As I have had it explained to me - as long as what I do is not with the intent to cause injury then I am covered. Remember my example of the kid throwing the baseball bat - that was obviously stupid and could have very easily caused injury - but because his intent was not to injure he was covered. Again why I recommend those who play, who are not judgement proof, look into a liability policy. I happen to have one for my job, but it covers here to.

Note: However, this is considering civil liability. What you bring up brings up interesting questions of the criminal courts view on this. It may very well fall under negligent homicide laws if someone was injured by a marker you where using that did not following ATSM guidelines. Though I would still lean to the argument, with the recent history and especially PSP rules that I am following accepted industry practices... but I would hate to have to make it.

Your ideas on this bring up an entire new line of thought. Up to this point the discussion has been "when someone gets sued". Assume someone, without a pre-existing condition, is seriously injured, or killed in paintball. What our the risks of players, promotors, manufacturers in criminal court? Interesting line of thought.

[hitech]

Unless things change it's only a matter of time until someone "gets in serious trouble". They very well may face civil and criminal penalties. Since most individuals don't have a clue what ASTM standards even are, they can at least avoid intent. However, everyone else is liable. I'm betting the smaller companies are planning on making money until a lawsuit. Then you declare bankruptcy and move on. The bigger companies just consider it a cost of doing business...

Only time will tell... tick tock tick tock...

[SlartyBartFast]

The MARKER must be able to handle 3000 psi.

But what defines the "marker"?

I do agree that all markers should have a "seal of approval" to show that they indeed pass the "Do not fail catastrophically" criteria is met.

Wouldn't be too difficult to test either. Blast containment box and a whip and ASA adapter that can deliver 3000psi. But how fast do you apply 3000psi? Gradual build up or instantaneous?

But, it would also mean that all manufacturers would have to supply their markers in a fashion that they are ready to use after screwing in a tank.

Then, who is laible for all the macro-fittings and lowend brass and steel fittings or fore-grips, ASA adapters, swivels, etc.?

[SlartyBartFast]

Only time will tell... tick tock tick tock...

Well, it took from the mid-80's till recently for someone to get killed by the inadequate safety design of CO2 tanks.

Seems the "industry" is hoping their "luck" holds the same on HPA, fittings, input pressures, flash fills (or even regular fills without blast containment), ramping/run-away markers, etc.

[PBX Ronin 23]

There have been other deaths related directly to paintball. Be it a player on the field or a worker dealing with a booster pump, an industry that doesn't have standards and regulations that is complied to by the manufacturers is a catastrophe just waiting to happen.

We have been lucky so far. But just like a gambler in Vegas, do we as an industry know when to walk away ahead of the game? Or do we squander all that we have won.

[Lohman446]

We have been lucky so far. But just like a gambler in Vegas, do we as an industry know when to walk away ahead of the game? Or do we squander all that we have won.

We won't even consider rewriting the rules. If we are going to do these things... lets bring the ATSM standards up to date to them. Lets make a governing body.. lets do something. The warning signs are there - we have seen people killed and many of us beleive now that it is only a matter of time before this apathy towards the ATSM leads to a tragedy.. and in my mind criminally negligent charges being filed... Someone (more) is going to be killed over paintball - and I think it highly likely that at least one person, and likely several, are going to go to jail over it - and there is a thread on that discussion.

[SlartyBartFast]

I beleive the only way paintball will improve is through mandated training and certification at the local fields. And the only way that will happen is if the insurance companies take a closer look at the risk factors and daily operating procedures.

Perhaps a couple letters asking why SCUBA shop employees need certifications and training to fill HPA tanks but paintball fields let any untrained teenager do it?

Or to the occupational health and safety boards asking why SCBA tanks have to be filled in blast containment enclosures but paintball tanks are filled on the marker through unteathered hoses out in the open and while in the hands of the operator or, worse, the player.

But, be prepared for higher field fees as employees need to be trained and safety precautions have to increase.

[Lohman446]

Or to the occupational health and safety boards asking why SCBA tanks have to be filled in blast containment enclosures but paintball tanks are filled on the marker through unteathered hoses out in the open and while in the hands of the operator or, worse, the player..

I am fairly surprised OSHA has not already stepped in on this one, it seems to me they have the authority to do so.

[PBX Ronin 23]

Yeah but who wants to be the rat that points this out to them.....

[SlartyBartFast]

Umm, actually none of that is true.

Actually you contradict yourself.

There really is no federally mandated certification or filling containment procedures for either the 'filler' or the filling procedure.

All that applies is the title 49 hazmat training,which is only function specific as it applies only to a particular employee.A private individual can fill HP cylinders at the field or in his garage for that matter,all day long and not violate any written law.

Liability,now that is a completely diferent issue.

If there's hazmat legislation, there are employee and employer resposibilities. One of those is undobtable that only qualified employees perform the given procedure on the employer's premises.

So, individuals may be able to fil their own tanks on their own property or in public. But on private property as part of a business the procedure would be subjectto the hazmat rules.

[PBX Ronin 23]

And BTW, HECK NO, do you want .GOV to step in an enact federally mandated procedure or you'll most definately see the end of grass roots paintball (the vast majority of the sport) as we know it today.

A big ten four on that. This point is apparently what escapes a lot of people's minds.

I believe that there are some OSHA enacted regs and I'm not sure those are the ones you're reffering to in your previous post.

[Lohman446]

Exactly - I would like to keep the government out. However, if we do not self police ourselves, how long can we keep the government out?