How close to criminal negligence are we

[PBX Ronin 23]

Very aptly put Vanced. Ergo the dilemma and the choices.

Either keep up the status quo and take your chances of nothing happening. If it does happen, some company might meet their economic demise. To make the situation worse, a series of catastrophic events will lead to governmental intervention where non-compliance will lead to negative consequences.

Or be collectively Proactive and start establishing guidelines for the established companies to comply with. Enforce the need for rogue manufacturers to carry product liability insurance in the hopes that it would be a preventive measure against making non-compliant products. Have everybody comply to the rules either through moral or legal suasion.

Alas the later choice is highly unlikely but the wisdom of doing so is nonetheless there. Probably more likely to see the industry giants singing kumbaya while holding each others' hands in a circle of flowers....yup highly unlikely.

[Vanced]

Very aptly put Vanced. Ergo the dilemma and the choices.

Thanks PBX,

I guess it all comes down too... paintball in it's current state... a simple risk vs. reward analysis done by paintball companies tell them give the players everything they may want and make as much money off of it as possible as long as they are still willing to shell out their cash...

Because the risk of not doing it is in all likely hood just losing money ...

They are simply playing odds like most good buisnessmen ...

Odds of someone getting seriously hurt are slim but certainly there...
Odds of them sueing are a little less than that...
Odds of them putting together a good civil case that company lawyers can't settle, crush, or litigate to death ... very slim... Worse case senrio ... large payout for large companies... bankrupt and walk away for small ones... either way probably with profit already made...
Odds of them putting together a good criminal case... that someone (other than potentially the actual shooter of "hot" gun) will actually serve jail time with no "laws" in place.... practially next to zero...

And don't forget the legal power of that little piece of paper we all typically sign everytime before we play... signing away most if not all of our legal rights in theese mannors...

[shartley]

And don't forget the legal power of that little piece of paper we all typically sign everytime before we play... signing away most if not all of our legal rights in theese mannors...

[Lohman446]

Thanks PBX,

I guess it all comes down too... paintball in it's current state... a simple risk vs. reward analysis done by paintball companies tell them give the players everything they may want and make as much money off of it as possible as long as they are still willing to shell out their cash...

Because the risk of not doing it is in all likely hood just losing money ...

They are simply playing odds like most good buisnessmen ...

Odds of someone getting seriously hurt are slim but certainly there...
Odds of them sueing are a little less than that...
Odds of them putting together a good civil case that company lawyers can't settle, crush, or litigate to death ... very slim... Worse case senrio ... large payout for large companies... bankrupt and walk away for small ones... either way probably with profit already made...
Odds of them putting together a good criminal case... that someone (other than potentially the actual shooter of "hot" gun) will actually serve jail time with no "laws" in place.... practially next to zero...

And don't forget the legal power of that little piece of paper we all typically sign everytime before we play... signing away most if not all of our legal rights in theese mannors...

I think you may be right, but I think your not taking into full consideration the criminal negligence that would accompany making a marker outside of ASTM standards in the event something did happen. I think this possibility is more real than many of us beleive.

[SlartyBartFast]

Contrary to popular belief, the waiver folks sign when they go to a field is pretty much worthless.

[Lohman446]

However, without a clause stating that if part of the waiver is found to be invalid then the rest stays it does you no good. Once I can find one invalid point in that waiver then the entire thing is out in court and anything it says is gone. We would be much better off having people sign a document that was an acknowledgement of risk, and would be a much simpler document, rather than saying anyting about "waiving" rights. You could also include the comment you have about being responsible for following rules, etc as you have stated to define it as not the fields responsibility. The problem I see with most waivers is none of it will be acceptable in court because with on invalid point it is all invalid and cannot be used. At least as I understand things.

[SlartyBartFast]

However, without a clause stating that if part of the waiver is found to be invalid then the rest stays it does you no good.

I don't think contract law is quite that simplistic. You can't invalidate a contract based on one invalis point or claim. Unless that claim is sufficient to put the validity of the signing into question.

Seeing as these things are from the insurance companies, I'll trust taht their lawyers have SOME clue...

[Lohman446]

I don't think contract law is quite that simplistic. You can't invalidate a contract based on one invalis point or claim. Unless that claim is sufficient to put the validity of the signing into question.

Seeing as these things are from the insurance companies, I'll trust taht their lawyers have SOME clue...

As I was taught in business law classes without some clause (I forget the name of it) if you can invalidate one clause the whole thing is gone. Its based on the theory of negotiated, where each clause was negotiated for. I'd have to ask a lawyer for certain though. It looks to me like most "waivers" are a joke and any competent attorney could get the entire thing thrown out pretty quickly. I would like to leave room that I may be mistaken, but I beleive I'm right. I would just think, if I were designing one for a field, I would get rid of the non-enforeable parts to avoid any question.

[SlartyBartFast]

As I was taught in business law classes without some clause (I forget the name of it) if you can invalidate one clause the whole thing is gone. Its based on the theory of negotiated, where each clause was negotiated for. I'd have to ask a lawyer for certain though. It looks to me like most "waivers" are a joke and any competent attorney could get the entire thing thrown out pretty quickly. I would like to leave room that I may be mistaken, but I beleive I'm right. I would just think, if I were designing one for a field, I would get rid of the non-enforeable parts to avoid any question.

It's all clear as mud...
Student sports waivers:

http://soba.fortlewis.edu/nao/Tourism%20Recreation%20Law/high%20school%20sports%20waivers.htm

Water sports:

http://www.michbar.org/journal/article.cfm?articleID=601&volumeID=46

[shartley]

Thank you for your post. And let me address some issues you brought up:

Say a player is running through the woods and breaks their leg tripping on a root. If the waiver clearly stated that the game involved running through the woods and that the woods were in their natural condition, it would easily be argued by the field and their insurance company that tripping and falling is an accepted risk that the player should have been fully aware of. If no waiver was signed, the field owner and their insurance company would not be successfully sued for the broken leg, but for the failure to remind the player of the inherent risks (but even then, in a sane trial, it would be an uphill battle for the player to prove they were ignorant of the risks involved while running in the woods).

Without a waiver, the simple facts of the game could be actionable. Firing a projectile and welting your opponent is assault outside the game. The waiver should clearly tell the player to expect and accept such assault on the field of play.

[shartley]

[SlartyBartFast]

And anyone who trusts ONE lawyer need to realize that they can easily find ANOTHER who can prove the opposite for almost everything..... that is why there is almost always one lawyer per side of an issue.

But, only one lawyer will be proven right in court.

Just use a modification of this warning: WARNING!! ALL GUESTS OF NELSON ROCKS PRESERVE MUST READ THIS!

[shartley]

But, only one lawyer will be proven right in court.

Just use a modification of this warning: WARNING!! ALL GUESTS OF NELSON ROCKS PRESERVE MUST READ THIS!

[GT]

I just read the first page,

Ok here is an actual true case:
President of a company tells his people to cut off the tops of the empty 55 gallon arsenic drums and use them as garbage cans. Everything is fine for about 10 years and then his employees start dying. He was a corporation which normally protects the owner from personal liability in a lawsuit against the company (may paintball companies understand this very well). But in this case the courts cut through the "corporate veil" and went after the owner personally. They took everything he had and threw him in jail. This was because he knowingly violated industry standards that jeopordized the lives of his employees.

AGD

BIG logic problem here.

In your scernario you are assuming that ASTM has the same regulatory weight that EPA(in your example under RCRA). The owner in your example violated a number of FEDERAL Statutes, ASTM are voluntary standards.

Honestly I think the worst thing that would happen, besides the injury or death, would be a premise liability law suit or breech of duty (to prived a "reasonable" safe place to play). The law will be examined but where the rubber hits the road on a civil tort is if there were safety practices in place at the field but not enforced . i.e. they ban players with f/a yet the day of the event they allowed players to use f/a.

[Lohman446]

I just read the first page,




BIG logic problem here.

In your scernario you are assuming that ASTM has the same regulatory weight that EPA(in your example under RCRA). The owner in your example violated a number of FEDERAL Statutes, ASTM are voluntary standards.

Honestly I think the worst thing that would happen, besides the injury or death, would be a premise liability law suit or breech of duty (to prived a "reasonable" safe place to play). The law will be examined but where the rubber hits the road on a civil tort is if there were safety practices in place at the field but not enforced . i.e. they ban players with f/a yet the day of the event they allowed players to use f/a.

But, if you violate industry accepted safety standards - especially after you (as an industry) agreed that these were the "safe" limits do you not prove yourself more negligent in the absence of further scientific standards or newly adopted safety standards?