Volunteering and liability

[SheitlQueen]

The 'beauty' of Uber is that after you claim the income, you have many expenses. I am not sure how you can actually make money with Uber.

You have many more miles than you actually drive. You have to get to the first stop, and drive back home. Plus any unpaid distance between stops is deductible. Any extra insurance, a cell phone, a cab camera, and adding a few passenger conveniences is also a cost.

There is a definite risk for getting robbed too.

He does it just for something to do...he is retired and gets bored sometimes. I personally would find another way to occupy my time!
He also lives near a major airport and pretty much limits his time to taking people from near his home to the airport.

 

[nativenewenglander]

I just checked into insurance the other day regarding a new Board volunteer gig up for consideration. The groups doesn't have Board Officer liability coverage, but is available for $600 per year. I called my local agent I've used for 35 years, she said my personal umbrella policy covers me as a volunteer. I didn't read through all the pages, but wanted put this out there for you.

 

[OldShooter]

... the odds of facing a civil suit sometime in your lifetime are certainly not negligible. ...

Some numbers to support this assertion, please. I will concede that the risk of getting sued if involved in an automobile accident are not totally negligible, but that is why we buy auto insurance. This thread is not about that kind of liability, nor was my post.

A different point: I wonder how many people who are aghast at an RSO not having insurance have ever actually spent time at a shooting range. I don't fault the OP in the least for his decision, but ranges where I have shot have been highly controlled environments and not at all scary. I don't have any numbers but my guess is that my highway time driving to and from the range is at least as risky as my time spent shooting. Certainly the drive is a less controlled situation.

 

[Senator]

A different point: I wonder how many people who are aghast at an RSO not having insurance have ever actually spent time at a shooting range. I don't fault the OP in the least for his decision, but ranges where I have shot have been highly controlled environments and not at all scary. I don't have any numbers but my guess is that my highway time driving to and from the range is at least as risky as my time spent shooting. Certainly the drive is a less controlled situation.

Most, if not all, ranges have a liability waiver form that must be signed. It would not cover negligence, but may help reduce liability.

 

[JoeWras]

Maybe it is because I have been in business for myself (in addition to a FT job) for many years and never got sued. I used to own a bar, a small landscape company, and now many rentals. I sold raccoons for pets that bit people. I had a dog that got hit running across a road, and the person that tried to save it got killed by a different car.

I would not want to be sued, and never have. I have sued several people myself. To run your life continuously worried about a lawsuit, you might as well stay in a bubble.

If you own a dog, you are statistically a 1,000,000x more likely to be sued than being an RSO at a gun range.

Senator, seriously!? Did they at least claim against your insurance? That is what usually prevents lawsuits.

I mean, geez, a friend's dog ate his neighbor's bird, and they had a friendly insurance claim. There was a recent thread here about a SIL making an insurance claim against the member for something fairly trivial. It happens, but the insurance is what prevents the court action.

You had all that and came through with no actions at all? That's incredible!

 

[JoeWras]

I just checked into insurance the other day regarding a new Board volunteer gig up for consideration. The groups doesn't have Board Officer liability coverage, but is available for $600 per year. I called my local agent I've used for 35 years, she said my personal umbrella policy covers me as a volunteer. I didn't read through all the pages, but wanted put this out there for you.

So... As a board member of an organization I helped us decide to get D&O insurance even though most of us had umbrellas. Why? Because we want to not limit our volunteers to only those with umbrellas. Much like the discussion of the range screwing over the volunteer ROs, we didn't want to burden our board volunteers. It is the right thing to do.

Why did we get D&O? Because an affiliated organization had an incident where someone got hurt at some venue for an event, and they went back to the board blaming them for choosing the venue. Even though there was specific insurance for the event at the venue... Blah, blah, blah. That insurance apparently calmed down situation, but it spooked the daylights out of the board members who were just threatened with the lawsuit.

 

[Meadbh]

I volunteer for my condo board. We have volunteer insurance coverage for $100K and directors and officers insurance for $18 million. Without insurance, I would not consider being involved.

 

[Senator]

Senator, seriously!? Did they at least claim against your insurance? That is what usually prevents lawsuits.

I mean, geez, a friend's dog ate his neighbor's bird, and they had a friendly insurance claim. There was a recent thread here about a SIL making an insurance claim against the member for something fairly trivial. It happens, but the insurance is what prevents the court action.

You had all that and came through with no actions at all? That's incredible!

Nothing.

 

[marko]

A different point: I wonder how many people who are aghast at an RSO not having insurance have ever actually spent time at a shooting range. I don't fault the OP in the least for his decision, but ranges where I have shot have been highly controlled environments and not at all scary. I don't have any numbers but my guess is that my highway time driving to and from the range is at least as risky as my time spent shooting. Certainly the drive is a less controlled situation.

That may indeed be true but trying to convince a jury of that might be another matter.

 

[CRLLS]

Senator, seriously!? Did they at least claim against your insurance? That is what usually prevents lawsuits.

I mean, geez, a friend's dog ate his neighbor's bird, and they had a friendly insurance claim. There was a recent thread here about a SIL making an insurance claim against the member for something fairly trivial. It happens, but the insurance is what prevents the court action.

You had all that and came through with no actions at all? That's incredible!

Things are different today. About 40 years ago, we had a picnic with a few neighborhood families. We had a German Shepard that never had shown any anger, especially towards any kids. We announced that we were feeding the dog (chained) and to keep away just in case. One of the young'un's about 4 or 5 yrs old wanted to see what was happening inside the doghouse, where the dog was eating. Well the dog took exception to that and gave the boy a warning bite on his face, breaking the skin.

We offered to pay any Dr bills, etc. The parents told us "You announced it to everyone. The boy should have known better." Nothing more was said. No bill ever came. No insurance claim was ever filed.

Try that today and see how quickly the lawsuits come. We were lucky back then.

 

[Milton]

FWIW

Some numbers to support this assertion, please. I will concede that the risk of getting sued if involved in an automobile accident are not totally negligible, but that is why we buy auto insurance. This thread is not about that kind of liability, nor was my post.

Actually, your post asked about non-employment, non-business liability ("For those of you so concerned about personal liability lawsuits in non-employment, non-business situations: how many people do you personally know who have had this problem?"). Automobile usage certainly falls within that.

As far as non-automotive, private liability goes, I've been involved in lawsuits arising out of dog attacks, horse and cow accidents, slip and falls, boomerang accidents (!), trampoline accidents, golfing accidents, boating accidents, swimming pool accidents, small airplane accidents, fires, etc. I don't recall precisely how many such cases, but certainly well over 100. I'm unsure how that really helps you, but since you asked.

If you choose to assess any risk as insignificant, that's fine; we all need to make our own decisions. I don't sell insurance, own no insurance company shares, and have no vested interest in promoting it.

I wonder how many people who are aghast at an RSO not having insurance have ever actually spent time at a shooting range. I don't fault the OP in the least for his decision, but ranges where I have shot have been highly controlled environments and not at all scary. I don't have any numbers but my guess is that my highway time driving to and from the range is at least as risky as my time spent shooting.

I for one am not aghast; I just think he's being treated shabbily.

As a longtime target shooter, I have extensive experience on various military and civilian ranges. I agree that they are controlled environments, and that the risk of injury or death is much less than driving. That said, human beings are imperfect and some accidents will always happen, no matter how controlled the environment. We can minimize risks, but they can never be eliminated:

• I've personally witnessed one AD on a civilian range (fortunately with the pistol pointed downrange);
• David Petraeus is a well-known example of a wounding by AD on a military range; and
• I once had a friend who was suspended from a police academy after accidentally wounding a fellow recruit on the range.

 

[marko]

As a longtime target shooter, I have extensive experience on various military and civilian ranges. I agree that they are controlled environments, and that the risk of injury or death is much less than driving. That said, human beings are imperfect and some accidents will always happen, no matter how controlled the environment. We can minimize risks, but they can never be eliminated:

• I've personally witnessed one AD on a civilian range (fortunately with the pistol pointed downrange);
• David Petraeus is a well-known example of a wounding by AD on a military range; and
• I once had a friend who was suspended from a police academy after accidentally wounding a fellow recruit on the range.

Locally a few years ago we had an 8 year old killed when some idiot at a shooting range gave him an Uzi to fire. The recoil apparently sent the gun back around 180 degrees and ....

Agree that most places are likely safer than driving, but in the rare case of an issue, once you mention firearms to a jury all bets are off; at least where I live. In the next town to mine (very upscale), parents complained that a police officer who was directing traffic at their kid's school had 'terrified and traumatized' the kids because they saw that he was wearing a gun. Seems that a bunch of kids ended up running and screaming after seeing the holstered gun. But that's another story I suppose.

 

[ncbill]

Umbrella insurance is inexpensive.

And all the policies I've had covered volunteering.