Rules, clubs, lawyers, and insurance help please

[I2DDD]

I found this forum by direction from a friend and this is my first post here. I attempted the same at the other site but the subject has been derailed.

This is not a troll and I really wish to get opinions about the following.


Please if you do not want to offer genuine and serious thoughts please...please...please refrain.


Ok ponder…does the potential of a board member or member of a club to be sued , as result of an accident, increase due to club safety rules that are enacted beyond those mandated by the AMA. Just for the sake of this discussion let us not consider rules specific to just that flying field and its particular flying conditions such as over flying of roads, houses or other structures etc… or other such type rules. Instead let us focus on rules that could be adopted for any club for safety operations such as…

Do not start and run an engine behind a certain line while in the pits

Or

Do not start and run an engine under the hanger

Or

Pilots should only stand in this spot while flying

Or

Only 4 airplanes in the air at one time

Or

Models should only fly a particular pattern and distance from the pilot stations

Or

Helicopters can not be flown along with airplanes

Or

No 3d flying on Sunday

Or

On and on and on ........

Although on the surface the rules may seem beneficial to some, could they very well be construed as exclusions to AMA coverage and leave the rule makers vulnerable, especially if the rules are not disseminated and applied properly? IMO yes!

What say ye?

[Don Sims]

Welcome to the site and it looks like a great question. Hope you visit our other forums.

Perhaps the club is being micro managed by someone who is inconsistant. Several of the rules you mentioned make good common sence but a few are strange like the amount of planes in the air at one time. What is the reason why those rules were made and did the club vote on them? Whats the clubs bilaws say about such rules??
Don

[easytiger]

I do not beleive it to be a factor.
I do NOT see AMA or AMA's insurance company denying claims based upon tiny violations of the safety code...
For instance, I have never heard of anybody denied due to not having their AMA number or adress on the model, and I'd say that 75% of the planes out there do not.
While I supposed they COULD deny on this basis, it seems they do not.
I don't beleive it increases the vulnerability of club officers...
If someone REALLY wants to sue, they are going to anyway.
The rules will help prevent problems in the first place.

[Jim Branaum]

The AMA EC is attempting to unhook the SC from the insurance issue. Go to the AMA site and read the first lines of the 2003 SC and compare them to the 2004 SC.

Club members HAVE sued club officers and WON when the officers failed to follow already in place rules and did not use due process in exercising their power. One end result of that nightmare is that the AMA no longer covers officers for liable and slander and I suspect the AMA would bail out if it were too easy to prove the local club EC violated existing rules of the local club.

I think it is the position that the AMA is NOT a police organization or a money trough that drove the decisions around that action and led to todays situtation. Now club recharter packets require club by laws to be submitted for review. When a club's rules are found inadequate, I have been told they will be asked to modify them accordingly.

A sample to draw from can be found on the AMA site in .PDF format. Be careful not all those rules are good, or legal in your state, or even desirable. That is the task you and your club must take on.

I think that as a club officer you would make a point of making sure every member was aware of any new rule enacted as soon as possible to prevent field loss. Now if the rule making was just an excersize in power politics, I would plan on ducking a lot. <G>

[easytiger]

I think you are talking about a different issue, Jim.
The lawsuit you are talking about has to do with internal club politics, kicking somebody out, the liability with THAT.
Hence the need for all clubs to have some sort of codified bylaws.

I think what the OP is talking about is different.

[I2DDD]

I guess what has me concerned is the phrase "becomes an exclusion to AMA coverage" or words to that effect as it relates to club rules. I understand that making club members aware of rules and especially new or changed rules is paramount but sometimes things just seem to have a way of falling through the cracks and of course it is the member that is not engaged or indifferent that is the problem. Should a club send registered mail for changes in rules to insure adequate notice or what?

Are my concerns justified or should I just forget it and go fly?

[easytiger]

Go fly.
You are talking apples and oranges, and misinterpreting the gist of that lawsuit, which had nothing to do with any safety code.

[I2DDD]

Originally posted by easytiger
Go fly.
You are talking apples and oranges, and misinterpreting the gist of that lawsuit, which had nothing to do with any safety code.

Don asks “club vote on them? Whats the clubs bilaws say about such rules??”

Don The club voted on some and I am not sure just how others came to be and our bylaws do not address safety rules much at all.


easytiger

I guess somehow you may not understand. I am NOT interpreting any particular lawsuit.

I think...you think that I am referring to Jim's post earlier in my previous post. Is that true? If so that is not the case.

Now I wonder if we are all on the same page as for as the topic of this post is concerned.

I really seem to have difficulty getting a point across on these forums. Something just seems to get lost in the transcription of my thoughts somehow.

I will try again...

DO club rules, those that could be interpreted as safety rules above and beyond those prescribed by the AMA, since they become exclusions to AMA coverage; expose the rule makers to a greater chance of litigation since the additional rules decreases the overall parameters of coverage by the AMA in the event of accident?

Please… could those that wish to respond preface their opinion with a YES or a NO before they go into to their reasoning to help maintain an order that is conducive to exchange of ideas and to insure mutual understanding?

Just to clarify some…I am not talking about AMA or AMA's insurance company denying claims based upon tiny violations of the safety code...or discrimination…or violations to any degree of the AMA basic SC…only the rules BEYOND the basic SC.

I realize the AMA may defend the club in an action against them and may contribute to the ultimate settlement. My CONCERN is PURELY your opinions as to whether the PROBIBILITY of some litigation increases or not.

[Don Sims]

IMHO Yes, if individuals are diluting club rules on safety then they are opening the club up for more libility. Especially if the rules are not enforced across the board.

Keep in mind, I'm not an attorney.

[ICTHRMLS]

Originally posted by I2DDD

DO club rules, those that could be interpreted as safety rules above and beyond those prescribed by the AMA, since they become exclusions to AMA coverage; expose the rule makers to a greater chance of litigation since the additional rules decreases the overall parameters of coverage by the AMA in the event of accident?
Are you saying that ALL AMA rules are still in place and you are making those requirements stricter??? Or.... are you "diluting" the AMA rules and replacing them with modified versions???

Big difference between the two proposals.

[rsallen13]

I2DDD,

The problem is you are asking the wrong group. You need to take this question to a Lawyer who is versed in Insurance and Corporate Law. They are the only ones who can answer this question. Asking Plumbers, Accountants, Truck Drivers, and modelers will not answer this question to your liking. And that is what made it a troll in the other forum just as it will in this forum.

Or better yet send your question to Carl over at AMA and then let us know what they say. And after you hear back from the lawyer post that also as we would all be interested.

[I2DDD]

Originally posted by rsallen13
I2DDD,

The problem is you are asking the wrong group.

rsallen13

Somehow you don't get the point. I want the viewpoints of YOU and OTHERS that post/ read here. I am not looking for legal advice but would appreciate any real world accounts as it pertains to this matter...such as your club views or strategies.

I am trying to get a feel as to how additional rules above and beyond the AMA’s SC are perceived as it relates to club liabilities.

[I2DDD]

Hey where did JR's post go?

[ICTHRMLS]

May have strayed off topic a bit..........

[I2DDD]

Originally posted by ICTHRMLS
If you have to ask then maybe they were right............

ICTHRMLS

who is "they" and what are they "right" about?

:confused:

[Don Sims]

Originally posted by I2DDD
Hey where did JR's post go?

Members need to treat each other with respect here is why I edited JR's post but did not delete it.

12DDD if you read rsallen13's post the they he's referring to is the AMA.

Back to the discussion!!
Don

[ctdahle]

The answer to your question in the first post is:

It Depends.

It is difficult, and rightly so, to hold someone liable for failing to govern the conduct of another person.

However, consider the following hypothetical:

Imagine a flying field that borders on a major highway.

Then imagine that a particular flyer gets his jollies by buzzing cars.

Further imagine that the flyer is a club officer or for some other reason the club leadership ignores the conduct and allows the flyer to continue to buzz cars.

Imagine then that a motorist and her three kids are killed when she is frightened by the model plane dive bombing her, dodges, loses control and veers into an oncoming semi.

Almost certainly the club and it's officers will be named in the subsequent lawsuit, along with the flyer, and anyone else connected with the incident. I would suggest that evidence that the club had discussed the conduct, proposed, and adopted a rule designed to prevent the conduct, and was taking disciplinary action against the flyer would do a lot to reduce the club and its officer's liability.

Clubs probably have a duty to adopt, and enforce rules that are necessary for the safety of the non-flying or non-member public. Rules regarding or limiting overflight of areas behind the flightline, over the pits and spectator and parking areas, or beyond the limits of an identified safe overflight area fall within this catagory.

Clubs should only adopt rules that are reasonably necessary to protect safety, and they must be prepared to uniformly enforce any rule they adopt. In discussing a rule, the question should be "are we prepared to throw someone out of our club or obtain a restraining order if they fail to obey this rule?"

As for the other scenarios you raise, the general plan should be to design and maintain a flying field that minimizes danger without lots of rules.

For example a "four planes in the air only" rule might be wise on a small field where the flightline crowds the runway or wind and weather conditions make it necessary for pilots to be extra aware of traffic, but the need for the rule could be avoided if the field was designed with adequate spacing between designated pilot's stations and a proper buffer zone between the pilot's line and the runway.

It is always better to have a physical set up that reduces the need for safety rules than to have lots of rules that are hard to remember, or are difficult to follow.

[I2DDD]

ctdahle

WOW!!! Exactly!!! And well said. Finally someone sees it just the way it is! You MUST be lawyer or work closely in the profession. Your post is right on the money. Finally……...

I had given up and figured I was all alone. I have posed this query in two forums and have been labeled a troll or some type of renegade for the most part. Only a few respondents even seem to grasp the question at hand much less give a real insight into rules as they relate to clubs.