ACA Standards are used by Expert for the Plaintiff in a lawsuit against a Camp

Posted: March 7, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: Minors, Youth, Children, Summer Camp, Youth Camps | Tags: , , , , , | 2 Comments

This case shows how standards, written by a great organization with good intentions can be used to help, encourage and support lawsuits against its own members.

This case was settled, but it is full of information that everyone who may be a defendant needs to understand.
This case was started by a woman, the plaintiff, more than five years after she had spent a couple of weeks at a summer camp. She was not a camper nor was she working at the camp. She had been invited out by a staff member to give her a break from home. Allegedly, she was (consensually although there may have been statutory issues) sexually assaulted by an older staff member. She sued the staff member and the camp.

The plaintiff, to support her position, hired an expert witness. This is a common practice to support a claim. The expert witness’s job is to prove the defendant camp had acted in violation of the standard of care for camps. The plaintiff’s expert was an ACA standards visitor. The Expert Opinion by the ACA standards visitor was used in the plaintiff’s motion to support a claim that the defendant Camps actions warranted an award of Punitive Damages.

Punitive damages, are damages awarded by the jury above and beyond actual or compensatory damages. The damages are meant to punish the defendant. Punitive damages are not covered by insurance, are not dischargeable in bankruptcy and are in addition to any other damages. The defendant must pay punitive damages, if awarded, no matter what. Consequently, if the court approves the motion to ask for punitive damages in a case, it almost always forces the defendant to settle for fear of having to pay money out of their own pocket. The facts are never thoroughly litigated because they fear of the punitive is overriding. Even if you are 100% right, you may still settle in if punitive damages is a real threat.

The expert for the plaintiff (no relationship to me) was listed as an expert because she was an American Camp Association Accreditation Standards visitor. The experts Resume listed her ACA membership and her ACA Associate Visitor status second only to her education. The “Standards” allegedly violated were the 1998 ACA Accreditation Standards for Camp Programs and Services.

The expert opinion listed five areas that the camp had violated the standard of care for camps. Those areas are listed in the report as Opinion 1 through 5. ACA standards were used to support the expert’s opinion in three of the violations.

The first opinion rendered was the defendant camp violated the then ACA Accreditation Standards – HR-10. HR-10 states no camp staff member is to be under 16 years of age. The plaintiff at the time she was visiting camp was 14.

The first issue is the standard was applied to a fact situation that really had nothing to do with the claim. However, because there was a standard that could be linked to the claim, no matter how remote, the standard was alleged to be violated by the defendant. The plaintiff in this case was not a camp staff member, was not a volunteer, and was not getting paid. She was there for a break from her family. Nevertheless, the standard was applied to show the defendant camp should be held liable for punitive damages.

The second issue is the standard created by the trade association that the camp was a member of, was used to show the camp was negligent. That is just wrong!

Opinion 4 stated that 4 ACA Camp Standards were violated:

HR-11 requires six days of pre-camp staff training of employees.

HR-12 required late hire training for employees.

HR-13 requires implementation of in-service training for employees.

HR-19 requires specific training for staff supervisors to maintain staff performance and address inappropriate staff behavior.

The plaintiff had not received any training. I’ve never seen a camp train any visitor. (Although I’m sure you wish you could sometimes!)

All four “Standards” were violated because the plaintiff did not receive any of the training required by the ACA “Standards”. Again, visitors to camp need to go through training? Late hire camp staff training? Hire usually means someone is employed, consequently, paid, which never occurred here.

Opinion No. 5 stated the defendant camp violated ACA Standard HW-19 and ACA Standard HW-20 on the proper system of health care camp record keeping. This was alleged because a cut the plaintiff received was not recorded in the nurse’s log.

What is so interesting about this issue was there was no allegation that the cut the plaintiff had received was received or treated negligently. Nothing in the lawsuit claimed the way the plaintiff received the cut, the first aid or treatment was negligent. The complaint just stated she received a cut and was taken home by her parents. The suit claimed that an older camp staff employee had sexual relations with the plaintiff.

However, this is a perfect example of how plaintiffs use any violation of the standard, whether or not it has anything to do with the claim, to make the defendant look bad in the eyes of the court and the jury. Good defendants do not violate standards. Here the defendant was obviously bad because the standard was not met.

There is no way that any camp can operate and not violate one of the “Standards” at some time during the camp season! 1998 there were just too many of them. In 2011 there are even more.
 
To support the allegations made in the plaintiff’s expert report copies of the “Standards” were attached to the report. The following pages were attached to the report:

Cover Page
Title Page
Table of Contents vii
Table of Contents viii
Page 92 HR-10 Staff Age Requirements
Page 93 continuation of HR-10 and HR-11
Page 94 continuation of HR-11, HR-12 and HR-13
Page 97 HR-18 and HR-19
Page 98 continuation of HR-19 and HR-20
Page 67 HW-19 Recordkeeping
Page 68 HW-20 and HW-21

Why only those pages? Because those are the important pages the plaintiff wants the judge to see. There are limits to how big motions can be how many pages the judge will read, pages, etc. Those are all valid arguments and are real for only putting in the important documents as exhibits.

However “standards” are written with disclaimers and limitations and definitions, none of which are ever given to the court. The court is never shown that there may be limitations to what the “Standards” mean or how they are applied.

Even if those were supplied, the court must apply the definitions that are in the statute or by law first and then as used in the community or industry second. See Words: You cannot change a legal definition.

Trade Associations write standards with the mistaken believe that the plaintiff’s experts and the court will apply the standards exactly the way the standards are intended to be written. The facts are once the standards are printed the trade association loses all control no matter how many pages of disclaimers are put in the information.

So the judge in this case, who is pressed for time, reads the report and has a list of standards that are violated. A standard is the optimum word. The camp was below the minimum level of acting or not acting that was set by the camps own trade association. That is all that is needed to keep the case moving forward. Standards were violated. Therefore, there may be negligence. That must go to a jury, there must be a trial and the cost to the defendant (and its insurance company) climbs even higher. (Consequently, your premiums increase also. See Insurance 101 if you don’t fully understand this.)

Even if the additional documentation is put into evidence, the legal definition of the words is going to be used, not how the word is defined in the standards book. See Words: You cannot change a legal definition.

Nor does the court have the opportunity to delve into the standards to find out that most of them are not really standards but suggestions, ideas or just good practices. However, by identifying the book as standard there is a legal definition applied to the work that is just as dangerous as it may be helpful.

Some might say that if the camp was bad then lawsuits get rid of bad camps (or other defendants). However, that never works. This camp did not close up. In fact, in my opinion, this camp was sued because it tried to help out a confused young woman. The end effect is there will be no more attempts to help anyone in the future.

The only real consequence of this lawsuit was the amount of time that spent working on the case. Some money might have moved between the parties, and the attorneys and expert witnesses made money.

Let’s look at the opinion no 1 of the plaintiff’s expert witness. The standard says that employees should not be under the age of 16. Most camps are run by families. Many times there may be two or three generations at the camp. If a staff member sends their 15 year old son to the tool shed to get a tool and in the process the son accidentally knocks over a camper, injuring the camper, the camp has violated that standard. No 16 year olds should be hired by a camp. However, he wasn’t hired. Well, we’ve seen how that does not work, and he was working, providing a benefit for the camp.

The camp has a couple of options.

1. Not allow their children at camp until they are 16.

2. Violate the standard.

You are going to take your kids to camp and have them play video games and watch TV or are you going to put them to work. If you put them to work before they reach the age of 16 you are violating a standard created by a trade association for your benefit.

Say you are an organization that works to install leadership, training and teamwork into the youth. It is common in your organization for the youth to be responsible for other members. (Sound like any organization you know?) Your camps are staffed predominantly by youth because of the training and goals of the organization. Every single one of those camps is in violation of the standard HR-10 (as it was in 1998).
If your youth organization is focused in leadership training and does that by helping youth move up to more advanced and important leadership positions, the entire program will fail if you say to the 14 year olds, wait two years until you turn 16 to move up to the next level, camp staff.

These are just two scenarios where the standard set forth in HR-10 (which is almost identical in the latest version) can be used to sue a camp every single day of the year. However, in both scenarios, nothing has been done wrong other than taking your kid to work and following your youth program guidelines.

Are all standards bad? No, standards for things are great. Concrete “acts” the same way every day. A fight with a spouse, traffic on the way to work, rain, none of this affects concrete. It is going to support XX thousands of pounds of weight. Standards for things work. People and how people operate are subject to millions of things, weather and other people. We don’t’ react the same way. We aren’t affected the same way. We don’t respond the same way, who can you write something down that says we will, no matter what.

For other articles about standards see:

This is how a standard in the industry changes…..but….

Can a Standard Impede Inventions?

Playgrounds will be flat soon

Words: You cannot change a legal definition

Trade Association Standards sink a Summer Camp when plaintiff uses them to prove Camp was negligent

The motion where the expert witness’ report was filed is here.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

Copyright 2010 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law, Recreation.Law@Gmail.com

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog: http://www.recreation-law.com

Keywords: #recreationlaw, #@recreationlaw, #cycling.law #fitness.law, #ski.law, #outside.law, #recreation.law, #recreation-law.com, #outdoor law, #recreation law, #outdoor recreation law, #adventure travel law, #law, #travel law, #Jim Moss, #James H. Moss, #attorney at law, #tourism, #adventure tourism, #rec-law, #rec-law blog, #recreation law, #recreation law blog, #risk management, #Human Powered, #human powered recreation,# cycling law, #bicycling law, #fitness law, #recreation-law.com, #backpacking, #hiking, #Mountaineering, #ice climbing, #rock climbing, #ropes course, #challenge course, #summer camp, #camps, #youth camps, #skiing, #ski areas, #negligence, #ACA, #American Camp Association, #standards,
Technorati Tags: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Windows Live Tags: Standards,Expert,Plaintiff,lawsuit,Camp,intentions,lawsuits,information,defendant,woman,camper,member,violation,visitor,Opinion,Camps,Punitive,Damages,jury,insurance,bankruptcy,addition,money,threat,relationship,American,Association,Accreditation,experts,Resume,membership,Associate,status,education,Programs,Services,areas,violations,fact,situation,employees,implementation,supervisors,performance,behavior,Although,Again,visitors,Late,Hire,Standard,system,health,allegation,treatment,complaint,parents,employee,relations,example,plaintiffs,defendants,Here,allegations,Cover,Page,Title,Table,Contents,Staff,Requirements,continuation,arguments,disclaimers,limitations,definitions,statute,industry,Words,definition,Trade,Associations,negligence,cost,premiums,documentation,suggestions,Some,consequence,attorneys,Most,families,Many,generations,tool,options,Violate,leadership,teamwork,youth,Sound,goals,scenarios,version,guidelines,Concrete,spouse,People,millions,Impede,Inventions,Playgrounds,Summer,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,management,Human,five,three,olds
WordPress Tags: Standards,Expert,Plaintiff,lawsuit,Camp,intentions,lawsuits,information,defendant,woman,camper,member,violation,visitor,Opinion,Camps,Punitive,Damages,jury,insurance,bankruptcy,addition,money,threat,relationship,American,Association,Accreditation,experts,Resume,membership,Associate,status,education,Programs,Services,areas,violations,fact,situation,employees,implementation,supervisors,performance,behavior,Although,Again,visitors,Late,Hire,Standard,system,health,allegation,treatment,complaint,parents,employee,relations,example,plaintiffs,defendants,Here,allegations,Cover,Page,Title,Table,Contents,Staff,Requirements,continuation,arguments,disclaimers,limitations,definitions,statute,industry,Words,definition,Trade,Associations,negligence,cost,premiums,documentation,suggestions,Some,consequence,attorneys,Most,families,Many,generations,tool,options,Violate,leadership,teamwork,youth,Sound,goals,scenarios,version,guidelines,Concrete,spouse,People,millions,Impede,Inventions,Playgrounds,Summer,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,management,Human,five,three,olds

Minnesota decision upholds parent’s right to sign away a minor’s right to sue.

Posted: February 21, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: Minors, Youth, Children, Release (pre-injury contract not to sue), Youth Camps | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Case was a baseball camp where the minor was injured during horseplay. 

Moore vs. Minnesota Baseball Instructional School, 2009 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 299 

This is a pretty simple case. The defendants operated a baseball camp on the campus of the University of Minnesota. The plaintiff’s mother had signed her son up for the camp, online or electronically. On the last day after lunch a group of students went to the courtyard. The plaintiff sustained a permanent eye injury when they started throwing woodchips from the courtyard at each other.

The father sued on behalf of his son. The trial court, a district court in the opinion, granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The father on his and his son behalf appealed.

The plaintiff first argued that the release, or assumption of the risk agreement as it was termed in the decision, should be “thrown out” because it could not be produced. Because the mother had signed online there was no signed document. On top of that, the system used by the defendant did not produce any document indicating who had signed what documents.

However, the defendant was able to show that the mother had signed other documents just like the release. A roster of those kids that had attended the camp that summer, with the injured minor’s name on it was produced. The camp through a director, also testified that if the mother had not signed the release, the minor would not have been allowed to attend the camp.

The mother’s deposition was also introduced. She could not deny filing out the forms online even though she did not remember the forms.

The plaintiff’s then argued that the language of the release did not cover the injury the minor sustained. The language only spoke to baseball and as such the release only covered injuries that the minor could have received playing baseball. Horsing around during free time therefore, was not covered by the release. The plaintiff also argued the language that excluded the claims; the release sentence was separate from the sentence that identified the risks. As such the release should be very narrowly construed.

Neither argument was accepted by the court. The court found that the release covered more than just baseball, and the release had to be read as a whole so the risk was incorporated into the exculpatory sentence.

The plaintiff then argued the exculpatory clause violated public policy. The court dismissed this argument. The court found that the baseball camp was not educational in nature. The training could be found through other sources and playing baseball was not essential or of great importance to members of the public.

So?
 
The rules of evidence have a procedure for admitting into trial documents that have been lost. The rule is based on procedure. The procedure to be allowed to go to a baseball camp required a parent to sign many documents. The child would not have been allowed at amp without signing all of the documents. A procedure was set up to show the mother had to have signed the release because her son was at the camp.
You should create a procedure for your business, camp or program. The best one I’ve seen for whitewater rafting was created by Mountain Waters Rafting. Guests were given their PFD’s (life jackets) when they handed in their releases. If a guest had on a PFD, the guest had signed a release.

The more you can identify a procedure that you used the same way every time, the easier to introduce a lost piece of paper.

Electronically, there can be several ways to make sure you can prove a person read and signed the release online. I first suggest you always tie a release into a credit card. The credit card company knows more about the holder of a credit card then you ever will. If the credit is accepted to pay for something on line, and the name on the release matches the name on the credit card you can prove the release was signed. If the trip or camp was paid for a release was signed.

You should also have a system that you are notified that each person has signed the documents. Create a way to download the information, name, address, etc. date and exact time the release was signed to your business computer and do so regularly. That information can be matched up, name, date and time to the credit card and payment used. Match this with your receipt of payment from the credit card company and you should have proof.

Make sure your release is written to cover all the risks of your program, business or activity. Here the language was broad enough the baseball program was covered for horseplay. How often do you feed guests, transport guests, and have guests just walking around that could be a chance to be injured. Your release needs to stop litigation, all types of litigation, not just what you face what you are selling to the public.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

 
Copyright 2010 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law, Recreation.Law@Gmail.com

Twitter: RecreationLaw
Facebook: Rec.Law.Now
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Blog: http://www.recreation-law.com

Keywords: #recreationlaw, #@recreationlaw, #cycling.law #fitness.law, #ski.law, #outside.law, #recreation.law, #recreation-law.com, #outdoor law, #recreation law, #outdoor recreation law, #adventure travel law, #law, #travel law, #Jim Moss, #James H. Moss, #attorney at law, #tourism, #adventure tourism, #rec-law, #rec-law blog, #recreation law, #recreation law blog, #risk management, #Human Powered, #human powered recreation,# cycling law, #bicycling law, #fitness law, #recreation-law.com, #backpacking, #hiking, #Mountaineering, #ice climbing, #rock climbing, #ropes course, #challenge course, #summer camp, #camps, #youth camps, #skiing, #ski areas, #negligence, #Minnesota, #baseball, #camp, #minor, #electronic signature, # Minnesota Baseball Instructional School,
Copyright 2011 Recreation Law 720 Edit Law, Recreaton.Law@Gmail.com
Enhanced by Zemanta

Trade Association Standards sink a Summer Camp when plaintiff uses them to prove Camp was negligent

Posted: February 14, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: Youth Camps | 13 Comments

Like a lot of things, the best intentions without legal guidance can become a legal nightmare.

Lesser v. Camp Wildwood, 282 F. Supp. 2d 139; 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16170

Trade Association Standards sink a Summer Camp when plaintiff uses them to prove Camp was negligent

Like a lot of things, the best intentions without legal guidance can become a legal nightmare.

Lesser v. Camp Wildwood, 282 F. Supp. 2d 139; 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16170

This is a fairly simple case from the perspective of the facts. Jory Lesser was attending Camp Wildwood. One evening, while at the waterfront for a firework’s display, a thunderstorm came up. Everyone was told to go to their cabins. Jory either got lost or became separated and was going on a different route when a branch blew down injuring Jory. Jory and his parents sued the camp.

Normally, an act of God is pretty hard to sue over. Service of process on “God” is difficult and collecting on the judgment is even harder. So you can’t sue for acts of God. You can sue for acts of God if you say you will indemnify God, or that you will protect your campers from God. That is what happened in this case.

Worse, the issue of protecting the campers did not come from the camp. It came from the Camp’s trade association, the American Camp Association (ACA). Granted, the camp undertook to live by the standards, but without the ACA standards this would have been a very different case. The Camp wanted the “seal of approval” from its trade association and had created a comprehensive plan to qualify to become accredited. The plan set forth specific instructions on what do in case of a thunderstorm. The only problem was no one told Jory about the plan. Kids don’t follow plans real well no matter whether the trade association insists and the camp thinks they should.

Even worse, the plan was pivotal in convincing the judge that the standard of care might have been violated by the camp. Specially, the ACA standards were used to show that there was enough question of the facts to allow the plaintiff’s expert to testify in the case.

In the decision, the court specifically pointed out the relationship between the defendant camp and the American Camp Association as important.

The defendant camp was an accredited member of the American Camping Association, (“ACA “), a private non-profit organization that promulgates standards for camps throughout the United States. The camp is also licensed by the state of Maine.

Pursuant to state licensing requirements and the ACA accreditation process the camp is subject to inspection by both entities.

In connection with their ACA accreditation requirements, the camp is required to have procedures in place for emergency situations. With respect to dangers posed by severe weather conditions, the camp had the following protocol:

From here the court quoted each one of the standards and protocols the camp had, which was being argued the camp had violated.

And it goes on from there. The standards created by the camps trade association, The American Camp Association was used by the plaintiff to show the Camp was negligent.

The case reported here is an evidentiary hearing. The defendant is arguing the plaintiff experts should not be allowed to testify for various legal reasons. These hearings are critical in determining what evidence will be presented to the jury. Here, the ACA standards were used by the plaintiff’s experts to show the camp was negligent. The judge accepted the plaintiff’s and their work because they could support their work with the ACA standards.

The plaintiffs retained David H. Fried, a camp and recreational safety expert, to opine on the defendants’ compliance with the standards and guidelines developed by the ACA.

The decision then looked at the safety plan required to be accredited. Plans are needed. However, they should be written in a way so they do not create liability. The plaintiff’s then went on to show how the plan was not properly implemented by the defendant camp.

The plaintiffs counter that defendants had an inadequate safety plan and that there was a “total lack of camper supervision” on the evening in question. Plaintiffs further argue that defendants breached their duty to the plaintiff by (1) failing to conduct evacuation procedures and drills; (2) failing safely to accommodate and plan for an evacuation of all the campers, including visiting campers; (3) failing to properly train and supervise the counselors in terms of an evacuation plan; and (4) failing to develop a plan to adequately monitor the weather so as to be apprised of an approaching storm.

The crowing proof that the ACA standards are used to show the camp was negligent is the quote below from the court.

According to evidence presented by the plaintiffs, there was also no rehearsal of any safety plan or communication of the plan to counselors, despite the requirement of training and/or rehearsal in the ACA Standards Manual. See Mosley Decl. Exh. N at OM-14 (ACA Accreditation Standards)

The heading for this part of the decision was: The Plaintiffs’ Camp and Recreational Safety Expert May Testify With Respect to American Camping Association Standards.

So?

Simply put the Plaintiff’s expert used the ACA standards, adopted by the defendant camp, to convince the judge the camp was negligent.

Standards are the lowest acceptable level of doing or not doing something. Below that level, if there is an associated injury, someone is negligent. If you do not violate a standard you have not breached the duty of care to someone. No breach, no negligence no matter how bad the injury or how great the damages.

Standards are determined by the jury at trial. Normally, the plaintiff and the defendant put witnesses and expert witnesses on the stand to determine what the standard of care is. The jury then decides based on what they’ve heard. That means the defense has a chance to prove they were not below the standard of care.

The defendant loses that chance if your trade association writes standards for you.

Normally, when dealing with an act of God, there is no decision, there is nothing for a jury to decide. Acts of God are not the fault of anyone, unless they know about the dangerous condition. (That is why it is called an act of God…….) To establish a prima facie case of negligence, the plaintiff must “demonstrate either that the defendants created the dangerous or defective condition which caused the accident, or that they had actual or constructive notice of the condition.”

The court even stated the standard of care for a land owner’s trees. In cases involving fallen trees or branches, a landowner will only be held liable if he or she knew or should have known about a defective condition of the tree. Ivancic v. Olmstead, 66 N.Y.2d 349, 351, 488 N.E.2d 72, 497 N.Y.S.2d 326 (1985). But for the violation of the standards of the ACA there would be no lawsuit in this case based the above issue at the time of the decision.

It does not get any worse than having standards established by a trade association used against the members. (Actually it does when the trade association trains the plaintiff’s experts to testify against its members, but that is for another time.)

Here, because the trade association had created the standard and the defendant camp had agreed to abide by the standard, the standard was set and the defendant could not effectively argue against it. No argument could be made that the standard was not correct. The defendant camp with its trade association had created a situation that guaranteed the loss of the hearing. The court summed it up this way.

Based on the evidence presented, and making all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiffs, there is a genuine issue of material fact on the issues of whether defendants provided adequate supervision and whether any inadequate supervision was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries.

The standards allowed the plaintiff find a way to sue the defendant camp, even when one would not normally exist. It changed an act of God into a losing lawsuit because the camp wrote down the camp would deal with nature a specific way.

So the plaintiff’s expert witnesses were allowed to testify at trial that the defendant camp violated the ACA standards which they had agreed to abide by.

No one told Jory, about the trade association standard of care or the evacuation plan.

So II

Some will argue that the defendant camp adopted the standards, so they knew. However, very few people really know the law as it applies to them or their members. That is obvious because the ACA and other groups are still writing standards.

Standards as I stated above are the lowest acceptable level.

How many times in your operation have you found there is only one way, the standard, of doing something?

How many times have you changed the way you do something because either you found a better way or other factors influenced what you do?

How many times have you not moved forward out of fear that you will be moving away from a written standard and thus opening yourself up to greater liability.

How many times have you ever understood the legal definition of the word standard?

There is a disclaimer in the front of the ACA standards. It says:

The purpose of these standards is to educate camp directors and camp personnel regarding practices and procedures followed generally within the camp industry.

It is obvious that the standards of the ACA by their own definition do not meet the legal definition of standard. Practices and procedures found generally within the camp industry are not the lowest acceptable level; they are probably some place closer to average.

By their creation, the ACA standards have created a legal level of care for its members higher than the required by law. Instead of a floor not to fall through the ACA standards is a hurdle that must be overcome.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

 
Copyright 2010 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law, Recreation.Law@Gmail.com

Twitter: RecreationLaw
Facebook: Rec.Law.Now
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law
Blog: http://www.recreation-law.com

Keywords: #recreation-law.com, #outdoor law, #recreation law, #outdoor recreation law, #adventure travel law, #law, #travel law, #Jim Moss, #James H. Moss, #attorney at law, #tourism, #adventure tourism, #rec-law, #rec-law blog, #recreation law, #recreation law blog, #risk management, #Human Powered, #human powered recreation,# cycling law, #bicycling law, #fitness law, #recreation-law.com, #backpacking, #hiking, #Mountaineering, #ice climbing, #rock climbing, #ropes course, #challenge course, #summer camp, #camps, #youth camps, #skiing, #ski areas, #negligence, #ACA #standards, #Camp, #camp wildwood, #wildwood, #care,
Technorati Tags: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Windows Live Tags: Standards,Summer,Camp,plaintiff,intentions,guidance,Lesser,Wildwood,Supp,Dist,LEXIS,perspective,Jory,firework,thunderstorm,cabins,parents,Service,judgment,campers,Worse,association,American,approval,instructions,Kids,decision,relationship,defendant,member,States,Maine,Pursuant,requirements,accreditation,inspection,entities,connection,procedures,situations,dangers,protocol,From,protocols,experts,hearings,jury,Here,plaintiffs,David,defendants,compliance,guidelines,Plans,camper,supervision,evacuation,counselors,rehearsal,communication,requirement,Manual,Mosley,Decl,Recreational,Expert,Testify,Respect,injury,negligence,Acts,accident,owner,trees,landowner,tree,Ivancic,Olmstead,violation,lawsuit,argument,situation,inferences,fact,injuries,Some,factors,definition,disclaimer,purpose,directors,personnel,industry,Practices,creation,Instead,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,management,Human,youth,areas,whether
WordPress Tags: Standards,Summer,Camp,plaintiff,intentions,guidance,Lesser,Wildwood,Supp,Dist,LEXIS,perspective,Jory,firework,thunderstorm,cabins,parents,Service,judgment,campers,Worse,association,American,approval,instructions,Kids,decision,relationship,defendant,member,States,Maine,Pursuant,requirements,accreditation,inspection,entities,connection,procedures,situations,dangers,protocol,From,protocols,experts,hearings,jury,Here,plaintiffs,David,defendants,compliance,guidelines,Plans,camper,supervision,evacuation,counselors,rehearsal,communication,requirement,Manual,Mosley,Decl,Recreational,Expert,Testify,Respect,injury,negligence,Acts,accident,owner,trees,landowner,tree,Ivancic,Olmstead,violation,lawsuit,argument,situation,inferences,fact,injuries,Some,factors,definition,disclaimer,purpose,directors,personnel,industry,Practices,creation,Instead,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,management,Human,youth,areas,whether

Copyright 2011 Recreation Law 720 Edit Law, Recreaton.Law@Gmail.com
Copyright 2011 Recreation Law 720 Edit Law, Recreaton.Law@Gmail.com

Berlin v. Nassau County Council, Boy Scouts of America, 229 A.D.2d 414, 645 N.Y.S.2d 90

Posted: October 25, 2010 | Author: | Filed under: Legal Case, Minors, Youth, Children, New York, Summer Camp, Youth Camps | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

To Read an Analysis of this decision see: Adult volunteer responsibility ends when the minor is delivered back to his parents.

Rita Berlin et al., Respondents,

vs.

Nassau County Council, Boy Scouts of America et al., Defendants, and Hugh Brickley, Appellant.

95-05684

Supreme Court Of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department

229 A.D.2d 414, 645 N.Y.S.2d 90, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. Decision

July 8, 1996, Decided

Devitt, Spellman, Barrett, Callahan, Leyden & Kenny, LLP., Smithtown, N.Y. (L. Kevin Sheridan of counsel), for appellant. Hershman & Leicher, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Harold M. Hershman of counsel), for respondents.

Pizzuto, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.

{*414} Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint and cross claims insofar as asserted against the appellant are dismissed, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

Brian Thomson acquired a slingshot from a store in Florida while on a trip with his Boy Scout troop. The appellant Hugh Brickley and the defendants Kenneth Bistyga and Philip Lembo were the chaperones for the trip. Brickley immediately confiscated the slingshot and did not return it to Brian until after the trip when he left Brian with his parents in Delaware. Approximately one week later, after the Thomson family had returned to New York, the infant plaintiff Daniel Berlin was injured when he and Brian were playing with the slingshot in Daniel’s backyard.

Any duty on the part of Brickley to supervise or control the activities of Brian terminated when he returned the child to {*415} his parents‘ custody (see, Purdy v Public Adm’r of County of Westchester, 72 N.Y.2d 1, 8-9; see also, Pratt v Robinson, 39 N.Y.2d 554, 560; Griffith v City of New York, 123 A.D.2d 830, 832). Even assuming that Brickley was negligent in returning the slingshot to Brian, the alleged negligent supervision by Brian‘s parents, who were fully aware that he possessed and was using the slingshot, was a superseding intervening cause which attenuated any negligence on the part of Brickley from the ultimate injury to Daniel (see, Nolechek v Gesuale, 46 N.Y.2d 332, 338-339; Elardo v Town of Oyster Bay, 176 A.D.2d 912, 914). Consequently, Brickley’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted.

Pizzuto, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Adult volunteer responsibility ends when the minor is delivered back to his parents.

Posted: October 25, 2010 | Author: | Filed under: Minors, Youth, Children, New York, Summer Camp, Youth Camps | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Thank heavens!

Berlin v. Nassau County Council, Boy Scouts of America, 229 A.D.2d 414, 645 N.Y.S.2d 90

A youth was on a trip with a Scout troop which is a program of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA). Sometime on the trip, the minor bought a slingshot. The slingshot was confiscated by a volunteer leader on the trip. At the end of the trip, the slingshot was given to the parents of the minor.

Later the minor was playing with the slingshot with another youth, and the other youth was injured by the slingshot. Either the minor had gotten the slingshot somehow or the parents had given the slingshot back to the minor, although this was not specifically stated in the opinion.

The parents of the minor injured by the slingshot, the plaintiffs, sued the volunteer adult leaders of the trip for the minor’s injuries.

The court in a succinct and short decision held the adult volunteers were not liable for the minor’s injuries. The basis for the decision was the action of the volunteer in giving the minor back to the parents was a superseding intervening act, which stops the claim.

A superseding act, eliminates the relationship between the damages which caused the injury and the duty owed. That means negligence cannot be proven. The damages are not proximate to the duty owed. Negligence has four parts, all which must be proven:

  • A duty
  • Breach of the duty
  • Injury
  • Damages proximately caused by the breach of duty.

The court’s decision says the fourth step cannot be proven because of the superseding act. The parents taking control of their child was an intervening act which the court said did not tie the duty and the damages to together legally. Stated another way, there was no relationship between the act of the volunteer and the injury received by the minor.

The plaintiffs seem to argue that the adult volunteer should not have given the slingshot back to the parents. However, the slingshot was a possession, a piece of property owned by the minor and as such, his parents. The slingshot was given back to the owners as required by the law.

So?

The relationship between a parent and a volunteer who is spending his or her time with the child is tenuous. As a volunteer you must be clear what your responsibilities are and are not going to be, as well as when that responsibility ends. It does not need to be so formal. It can simply be in the trip information that the kids have to be at the church by 7:00 PM and parents must pick their kids up Sunday at 2:00 PM at the church.

Most times, volunteers worry about injuries to the minor as a liability issue. There are other issues that can come up that you should be prepared to deal with.

Search and Rescue costs if a minor is lost can be substantial. (See No Charge for Rescue). Damages to property or injury to other minors can create liability for the adult volunteer responsible. A forest fire started by a minor can be costly. Even though most state courts will not allow a parent to release the claims of a minor for injuries, courts will allow releases or contracts where the parent agrees to pay for other claims the minor may create.

You can inform the parent and make sure they understand (meaning a written document) that they are responsible for any damages the minor may create for a reason other than injuries to themselves. I would include damages for the minor’s injuries on a different form. You do not want the court to throughout one release for the minor’s injuries when what you needed was protection for the damages done for the minors.

Jim Moss Jim Moss is an attorney specializing in the legal issues of the outdoor recreation community. He represents guides, guide services, outfitters both as businesses and individuals and the products they use for their business. He has defended Mt. Everest guide services, summer camps, climbing rope manufacturers; avalanche beacon manufactures and many more manufacturers and outdoor industries. Contact Jim at Jim@Rec-Law.us

Jim is the author or co-author of six books about the legal issues in the outdoor recreation world; the latest is Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law.

To see Jim’s complete bio go here and to see his CV you can find it here. To find out the purpose of this website go here.

G-YQ06K3L262

What do you think? Leave a comment.

If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn

If you are interested in having me write your release, fill out this Information Form and Contract and send it to me.

Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

Cover of Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

To Purchase Go Here:

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Email: Jim@Rec-Law.US

By Recreation Law   Rec-law@recreation-law.com       James H. Moss

@2010-2023 Summit Magic Publishing, LLC

#recreation-law.com, #outdoor law, #recreation law, #outdoor recreation law, #adventure travel law, #law, #travel law, #Jim Moss, #James H. Moss, #attorney at law, #tourism, #adventure tourism, #rec-law, #rec-law blog, #recreation law, #recreation law blog, #risk management, #Human Powered, #human powered recreation,# cycling law, #bicycling law, #fitness law, #recreation-law.com, #backpacking, #hiking, #Mountaineering, #ice climbing, #rock climbing, #ropes course, #challenge course, #summer camp, #camps, #youth camps, #skiing, #ski areas, #negligence, #BSA, #Boy Scouts of America, #youth, #No Charge for Rescue, #volunteer, #youth leader, #youth, #minor, Technorati Tags: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Windows Live Tags: Adult,parents,recreation,adventure,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,management,youth,areas,negligence,Scouts,America,Charge,Rescue,leader,blog
WordPress Tags: Adult,parents,recreation,adventure,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,management,youth,areas,negligence,Scouts,America,Charge,Rescue,leader,blog
Blogger Labels: Adult,parents,recreation,adventure,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,management,youth,areas,negligence,Scouts,America,Charge,Rescue,leader,blog

Newer Entries →