In MA this month. No less than THREE people were killed by field access fences put up by model airplane clubs while riding their off-road vehicles. I'd assume lawsuits are pending. Assume only.
I've been saying for years that people fail to understand that a lion's share of AMA major claims come from general liability...some kid falling off a railroad tie and falling on a piece of rebar and getting seriously hurt, et al.

What are your thoughts?

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=471911

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_34...anchor/tm.htm#

Lawsuits pending ? I think that loosing their life while trespassing is quite enough. I see no need to sue them for trespassing also. Seems like kind of a hard line to take.

I did read that article by D Brown in MA.

I can understand his position and his recommendations ,
but only to a point.

It doesn't take a lot of effort ,time or money to identify
a wire,chain,board,etc that is used to keep things on the
other side of the fence. Simply hanging a sign,ribbon,or
painting a bright color on the "anti-crossing device " is a
easy answer that MAY prevent these types of accidents.

In my state, (Mass) I believe that a law is on the books that
dictates that chains ,ropes,boards,etc be identified in some
means,(usually bright colors)in order to prevent the exact
accident described by Mr Brown.

Now for the rest of the story.

These types of accidents have been reduced but have not gone away.
Many times the motor devices are traveling so fast that by the time
the driver see's the problem it's way too late regardless of any markings.
The risk gets multiply-ed many times when riding these devices at night.
Can you imagine trying to clearly identify a barb'd wire fence around a
350 ache farm ?

It's too bad accidents like this happen, but it happens all the time.
I'm quite sure that more than 3 people each year are killed by the
exact same scenario.

I guess this is what happens when people don't take responsibility
for things they put in motion and then expect others to look out for them.


Roby

you know i echo Roby. Our field is on state property on a prison complex, but we still see off-road vehicles headin down some trails on the property. We have been fortunate that we have not had damage to our field by these vehicles, so a deturant device has not been neccessay. HAving said that I do not think we would even be allowed to put one up.
Each year in New England we har of hundreds...HUNDREDS of incidents with people on snowmobiles and quads, etc. running into fences, wires trees, and we even had a man get decapitated on his snowmobile because he hit a MOOSE at a high rate of speed.
Now I do not hink that banning the vehicles is reasonable,I enjoy this recreation. I do think that local authorities need to be brought in to handle things like tresspassing etc. In mass. all off road vehicles have to be registered as a motorvehicle. SO when a 14 year old is running an unregistered quad on private property trespassing....he is breaking more than a few laws. This way the responsibility is off the club. However loss of life for any reason is tragic. Everyone is someones husband wife brother sister mother father daughter son. Anything people can do to minimize through responsible action loss of life while maintaning enjoyment of your particular activity should be done.
It is far too often that we get so angry and frustrated at an event or action that by the time we finally speak to the offender we are unwilling to listen to their side and are just railing on them to vent the frustration. Communication is the clarity between misunderstanding and cooperation.

I think the best you can do is to make sure your gates and fences are clearly marked so as to help avoid any potential litigation if this kind of event happens, and that was DB's point. I assume.

These comments remind me of some things I learned of long ago about fencing disputes. Township Trustees used to handle them, and they would arise when a chunk of farm ground had some bad / rundown fence. The fence was supposed to keep livestock in (or out, depending on your point of view.)

The responsibility of the land owner was to provide half the fence between him and his neighbor. He was to stand on his land, looking at the fenceline in question, and the right-hand half was his to maintain. Along roads, the entire length was to be fenced (and suitable gates hung, over access drives.)

If this process was followed these days, there would be no "accidents". The gates and fence would keep livestock, snowmobiles, etc. on the other side of the fence. The only entry would be through a gate, after turning 90 degrees off a road. (Unless the culprit slammed into the fence from his own property.) Expensive? You bet. That's where the Township Trustees came in.

I suppose that would all be out of the question, now. Pity.

Just reminiscing,
Dave Olson

That's pretty much what I got out of it.

Normally, I too would assume that Dave Brown was concerned about litigation. In this case, his motive is the desire to prevent the loss of life. The following is the "wrapper" his column was delivered in the night of the last EC meeting. I think it makes it obvious that litigation was not in the forefront of his thinking.

*****
My trip home after a meeting is always a dangerous time, usually for
Joyce, and/or some of the rest of you, as my mind is working faster
than I'm driving, reviewing the meeting, and thinking about things we
should do. (Given my history, I suspect Joyce might support hiring a
chauffeur to allow me to sleep on the way home, so she wouldn't have
to deal with the wild idea's!)

While driving home, I got thinking about the 3rd fatal accident,
involving field barrier, and the more I thought about it, the more I
realized how badly I would feel if we had another incident before we
got the word out I decided to write my next column on the issue,
and composed it, in my mind, on the way home. Nearly home, I glanced
at the date, and realized that there was a chance I could replace the
column about to go to press, as a "blueline" change. This involves a
charge (minimal, I think), but I decided I just had to make the
effort. I would have a hard time living with myself if we had
another accident of this sort, while we hesitated on getting the word
out, so I called around to try to determine if I could make blueline,
and finally got to Joyce, after trying anyone in the magazine for
whom I had a home phone. Joyce wasn't sure, but she was able to call
Rob, and it is possible to make this substitution.

Given this, I'm writing this tonight, and we plan to get it into the
magazine which members will get in early February, rather than waiting.

I'm sending you a copy so that you might see what I've written, and
so that you might have a chance to suggest changes, PROVIDING YOU ARE
QUICK!!!

I understand that this will be "cast in stone" on Tuesday.

Thank's to everyone for hanging in there through a long meeting.



Dave Brown

I have just 2 words to say, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!!!!! Riding any vehicle at night, at hight speed, on property you shouldn't be on in the first place, no one else,s fault except your own. Any other court in any other country you wouldn't stand a chance of suing anybody.

There was no trespass involved. How did you determine that there was no right to be where the kid was riding? You can whatif this to death, but there are very few facts known... or at least so far. Whatif the kid had been riding in the same place yesterday? Whatif he had been rding in the same place an hour ago? Now where does the personal responsibility lie? Making statement like this is not useful or wise.

Does anyone remember when the daughter of the fellow that flew a trainer out of the sun back into himself, causing his death, in AZ showed up on RCU and started hunting down authors that had incorrectly made statements about her father? It was not pleasant, and there ain't much place to hide.

Oh, agreed! I would rather take my chances in the fine legal systems of, say, Nigeria, China, or North Korea than deal with the awful American legal system.

Thanks for the broad statement about nothing, though!

Parents of the unfortunate young man should bear some of the responsibility. He was obviously not of legal age to make a decision on racing murdercycles. If the club involved had published a notice in the local newspaper that the club was flying models on the field on certain days, and the road would be blocked on those days, and the barrier painted Day-glo orange, they might have a way out of everything. I believe that is part of what DB was trying to say. Although no person can forsee all the possible terrible things that may happen we can all get together and work on it. We are not in the position of trying to protect all the numbskulls from themselves but it would appear that we have to try. Some ambulance chasers will often convince "offended" parties to sue when it had never crossed their mind to do so. Phoenix, AZ is in the midst of a rash of road racing deaths of some innocent people due to drag racing on the streets. Bail is usually set high in case the offenders are caught. The next move is for the court to reduce bail. There is one case now in court of bail in a three person fatal drunken driving incident being reduced from $350,000. to $5,000 because the first instance was to high considering the man's income. Just ask the husband a father who lost his family if it should have been reduced.

Bail is designed very simply to make sure someone shows up at court. It is NOT supposed to be punishment. Remember that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing?
He'll have his day in court, and drunk drivers who kill people don't do very well in court, usually.

But by setting a high bail you KNOW he cannot afford, what you are saying is you want him jailed and punished before a trial happens. Does that seem right to you?

I also read Daves perspective and it is always diffcult for a family to have to deal
with such a tragedy, while we dont know the specific nature of each accdent
many including myself wonder was it the person that hit the barrier at fault
or the person that erected it.

most clubs use gates to combat vandalism I would say in 99% of the time if you were
supposed to be on the property you would know the barrier was there.

I will share a story that happened to me a couple of years ago i went to socal
flying site that im not a member of but i had flown there before I unloaded
my plane put it togather started it up and taxied on to the runway only then
did I see the two gray cabels the club had put accross the runway to stop
none members from using there site.

had i hit the cable on take off it would have destroyed my plane and the cable
was very hard to see but it would have been my fault.

some clubs are starting to put barriers accross there runways because they are
concerned that a none AMA members may take off from there site an hit
someone or something and the AMA insurance wont cover the club if they or sued.

1.Do you understand what tresspass is? Did you have permission to be on the clubs property?
2. What is the name of this club? Where is it?

Yes I know what trespassing is, although I had flown there before I had not been in
contact with anyone at the club before I went there on day in question to ask
permission to use the field and it had been several months ago that I was last at
that site.

name and location is unimportant for this discussion.

I might add the last time i was at this site the barriers were not up because there
was flying takeing place and my incident happened over two years ago im sure
with all the publicity about barriers they have made them more visible.

So, you were knowingly tresspassing. Did you know most insurance policies have exclusions for actions taken when knowingly committing a crime? Any insurance you have was probably not in force while you knowingly committed trespass.

Are you aware that the policy supplied to the landlord by the club and the AMA is primary and does not have the limitations of the coverage the club might have?

Seems like you could not only lose anything you own, if you have no insurance coverage due to your intentional act, but you might wind up in jail as well, should anything happen during your tresspass.

Your made up story is biting you in the butt, IMO. If it is not a made up story, supply the name and location of the club. It's in Bill Mulvey's (Phaderus) area if it is near you and I am sure he would be willing to talk to them. If not, I bet I can get someone from HQ to have a discussion with them.

JR
what is about you that makes you want to be a know it all and always want to
attack a persons character? to say I made up a story is calling me a liar
and you have no fact to base that on.

you are rude and need to stay off this forum go to the AMA web and start a fourm
that you can control and have it your way.

Ira_d

Support this, or was the 99% made up? Let’s see the proof.

Is this a made up opinion, or can you prove any of it? If so, let’s see the proof. It is not labeled opinion, so it must be fact and thus, provable. Let’s see the documentation.

Now, we do know, from your own statements that you knowingly broke the law. Do you consider that rude?

My opinion, until you prove otherwise, is that more of your post was made up opinions than provable fact. It the previous parts, you can not or will not support your statements.

And all that makes me rude? ROFLMAO

Edit: As long as I am being rude, you really need to consider continuing education. It's obvious that the errors in your posts are not just typos.
*************

JR, you are WAY out of line. This is unlike you.
Can we steer this back to the subject at hand?

You must be from another country or something!! Sadly, that is not how things work in the good Old US of A. Remember, over here it is ALWAYS someone else's fault.

Oh and before anyone gets bent, A320Driver IS from another country!! But he's having a hard time learning the ways of the New World!! [&:]

JR
first of all i dont have to prove anything to you are anyone else . although my
statements or baised on what i have seen are was told.

just because someone from the AMA didnt say it does not make it any more or
less fact my opinion is just as good as anyone elses.

again i ask why do have to lower yourself to personal attacks because someone
does not aggree withyou? when you tell someone they need to continue there
education thats like calling them stupid, the post is not about me it is about
barriers at flying sites.

in any case i will continue to post here as i please but i will no longer respond to
your post.

Sorry, but your wrong, the personal liability is held to the owner of the pole or chain, since it's their chain that caused the accident, whether it was tresspassing or not. Ever heard the old story about the robber that came into your house and fell down and sued you, we'll don't think that's an urban legend, because it's not.

If you put up a fence that is not clearly identified then YOU are taking the responsibility. Why have a pole across a road if you are not going to mark it as private property? You're only asking for trouble if you don't. Where does it say that chains or poles are property lines? A chain or pole is much deadlier then a fence is and just because someone was too cheap to buy a chain instead of a fence, then they should have spent the extra couple dollars to hang signage on that chain or pole. Once your gate is marked then they will KNOW they are not allowed to cross it and they will see it! You just killed 2 birds with 1 stone.

If you think your allowed to put up a chain or pole on your property and not identify it, then do you think you can put up an unmarked moat filled with wild crocodiles and not be sued if someone falls in the moat? What's the difference, nothing. How about a deep pit covered with branches, think that won't wind you up in court? Ever see an electric fence on a ranch? Did you ever notice that they usually are marked with signs that say "Electric Fence Beware". Do you think those signs are there because they don't want people to touch their fences? How about a "beware of dog sign" at a junkyard, do you think junkyard owners wouldn't love a fresh meal for their dogs? They are there so THEY don't wind up in court!

If you're a member of a field and especially part of the board and safety commitee and you have a chain, pole or fence crossing a road and you don't mark it after reading Dave's statement, then you should be kicked out of the club or be prepared to have your field shut down when you get sued, BECAUSE NOW YOU KNOW ABOUT IT, which makes it much worst.

DO WHAT HE SAYS!

Please support this statement.
How did you determine he did have a right to be riding there? You just asserted "there was no trespass". Back this up.
The way it was described, it's very likely he was on PRIVATE property. It did not describe him as riding down a public road and hitting a barrier, it described him as "racing down a runway". I've never seen a runway that was open to public joy riding. They are nearly always on property that is CLEARLY marked with no tresspassing signs. It's very likely that passed several very visible signs before he ever got to the runway. Most likely, he KNEW he didn't belong there, but did it anyway. It's becoming more and more common these days to make excuses for problems that arise when people do something they KNOW they are not supposed to do, but do it anyway. This is the personal responsibility issue people are talking about.

Note, this in no way diminishes the message from DB about making gates and barriers more visible.