My nephew is a Deputy Sheriff in an East TX County. He has a BS in criminal justice and worked for several law enforcement/connected organizations prior to becoming a deputy. Now he is attending some required schooling about something else that is becoming a big thing among the "sharks" out to raise more yankee $$.

That thing is:
>>>>>>>>>>
quoted and merged from several websites:

VICARIOUS LIABILITY

When one person is liable for the negligent actions of another person, even though the first person was not directly responsible for the injury. For instance, a parent sometimes can be vicariously liable for the harmful acts of a child and an employer sometimes can be vicariously liable for the acts of a worker.

Liability can also be imputed to an owner of a car who lends it to a friend. Again, the driver of the car is acting as the agent of the owner. If the owner is injured by the driver's negligence and sues the driver, the owner can lose the lawsuit because the negligence of the driver can be imputed to the owner, thereby rendering him contributorily negligent. This concept is known as imputed contributory negligence.
<<<<<<<<<<


Have you ever allowed someone fly your model? Have you ever checked out a model for someone else? What about the Contest Director that is lax on enforcing the Safety Rule/s? What about the Club Officer that doesn't enforce the Club rules at the field?
What about the Contest Director that requires a Safety Check and declares your/anyone's model as good to go?

Who can get blamed in all these instances. The more I get into this the more I only learn is that the court system in this country is looking for victims, and those victims are someone to blame and sue.

Kind of makes that AMA insurance look better and better. That is good.

I am not sure I wish to ever instruct anymore. That is bad.

I have witnessed several accidents recently that could well have hurt someone. In one case an "Instructor" flying an elderly gentleman's IMAA-legal Pier Cub was going against traffic in a landing approach and collided with an IMAC competitor flying a low knife-edge fast pass over the runway when another flight station was in use definitely against that club's posted rules. I asked the club's President to say something to the pilots. All he said was, "I don't want to talk about it."
The IMAC type continued to fly aerobatics over the runway with a gear hanging and a throttle stuck at my estimated 2/3+/- position until the fuel ran out. Most personel had vacated to under the metal shelter.

Under the "sue everyone" theme in today's legal (???) era, good folks are victims even when trying to do the right thing, much less the ones that just don't care, but are ever so quick to blame others for their screw-ups.

That's how I see the world!

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers". - (Act IV, Scene II Henry VI, Shakespeare).

Probably get moderated by Ken but I still like the quote.

Brad

Its really sad what has become of our society.</p>

That quote about vicarious liability contains a lot of misinformation. For one thing, in nearly all states, parents are not liable for the torts of their children, except (by statute) for some cases of malicious property damage, and those statutes often include low limits on liability. Car owners' liability for the negligence of others driving their cars is imposed by statute in many states under "owner liability laws"; it has nothing to do with the driver being considered the owner's "agent." This has nothing to do with contributory negligence, which refers to negligence on the part of the plaintiff, not the defendant, and which has been replaced in most states by comparative negligence. If people don't follow or enforce safety rules and someone is hurt as a result, liability isn't "vicarious," it's just ordinary liability for negligence.

There are, to be sure, lots of cases going pretty far to hold people liable (think McDonald's hot coffee). That's why we have liability insurance, and it's the main reason AMA membership costs as much as it does.

Amen!

The laywers (liars) are turning this great country into a mess. The country is still great in spite of them. Touch a hot stove plate, it burns you.

Bliksem

"(think McDonald's hot coffee"

Don't be surprised when you hear about the 'other' side of the story!

I hope so that you are right and I am wrong. I'm definitely not a student of the term, yet my nephew seems rather surprised at what the school is presenting.

Now there is a statement of total misinformation, especially the last phase. May I suggest you read the auditor's annual reports in the Members Only section of http://www.modelaircraft.org/ and digest just what, outside of employee salaries, is the single largest item of direct expense from the membership dues in the annual expense. You get a copy of it each month. [sm=49_49.gif]

You hit the nail when you wish to take me off any topic, even when I started the thread.

Hard to kill them when they are continually feed big insurance pizzas with extra cheese and thick crusty doe...um mm good....and guess who really benefits the most...yep... the dummy...you know the one that is most reckless and doesn't take proper precautions and don't give a shift since he can easily afford the insurance...Yep, socialism for dummies... Yep...an inverse proportionality benefit for the lower gene pool...now, just keep telling ourselves insurance is good...insurance is good...need more insurance...not real personal responsibility...artificial personal responsibility bought and paid for like artificial...hey, you ever been to Hooters...LOL

VICARIOUS LIABILITY
It proves once again that a greedy lawyer has no conscience. Washington is full of them!

This is new? I think not.

Clearly our clubs should be incorperated as banks.  We could avoid all liability and even receive bail outs when something  goes wrong.

As I read the OP , it appears that the AMA is liable for compliance with its rules. The AMA governs therefore the AMA could be found  vicariously liable.

This is exactly why clubs should never adopt any rules other than those provided by the AMA.  To avoid this exact type of liability.

Frank-

IANAL, but in my limited understanding of the inscrutable civil laws of this country you are spot on with that observation. I have tried to get that point across for years to the BoD oligarchy that rules a club I belong to. Also, the AMA Safety Code incorporates local club rules by reference, so they are gratuitously adding more exclusions from coverage to the AMA provided liability insurance, as if there were not enough already. Hasn't deterred them from making up more dippy, unenforceable rules though. Apparently it is considered a divine right and obligation by the elite that find themselves empowered to control model airplane clubs, though I never got the briefing on that.

Anyhow, in support of your position it is noteworthy that the largest payout for liability for a model airplane accident (that I am aware of) was against AMA itself, $1.3 mil judgement for the injured party that was hit by CL speed model during a sanctioned contest. Court found pull test required by AMA rules contributed to structural failure that resulted in the accident.

The members of that court should have been asked if they felt that annual load testing of the elevators they ride every day could contribute to a catastrophic failure.
Same goes with the mechanic who road tests the cars they drive after doing a brake job...

Yup it goes on and on LETS do away with the lires cheets and thievs LAWYERS and go to good common sence

Coulda, shoulda..........perhaps. AMA's legal beagles invoked and relied upon an 'assumption of risk' defense, arguing that injured party as a participant was aware of the potential risk of what happened to him but decided to participate anyway, so it was his own fault he was injured. It has worked before and since in injury cases involving recreational activities with good odds of prevailing in the civil courts, but it didn't in that case. Another shoulda in retrospect is AMA may not have been involved in the lawsuit in the first place if they had not balked at paying the injured party's claim against the operator of the model. Lots of possible alternate outcomes can be imagined, only one actually happened.

Perspectives in hindsight about how AMA might have successfully prevailed in that case are tangential to the point brought up by Frank, IMHO. I took it as a caution to rule makers that their rules might come back to bite them on their butts, and I happen to think he is right. Make the rules, bear the responsibility. I'm generally amenable to those terms, and so don't push rules on others........

it is all about the money-we collected $10.00 and paid out $2.00- we are still fat cats

Referencing back to the above comment regarding club instituted rules beyond the basic AMA requirement ...

As a member of an AMA club back home in Texas, I worked very hard with the club's BoD to par down their club added rules to only that which should and could be enforced. That meant a big reduction. The issue of concern here was that in the event of an incident an investigation might reveal we were not enforcing some of our rules. I think in most clubs that would be pretty easy. If this was found to be the case, the club may have to stand alone in a claim against it. AMA could say we were not in compliance with their rules because those imposed by the club became theirs. This might also put the officers and particularly the safety officer, in claim jeopardy without the backing of the AMA. This scares to poo out of me.

Tell me I am wrong here.

Bedford

Selective enforcement. Laws, ordinaces, rules and policy. All of these things a the very heart and soul of our Nation. We came up with the rule of law for a very simple reason. To protect the rights of every person. To make sure the rights of one person doesn't trample on the rights of another. Any time the rules are applied on one person or group and not another. The rule of law is no more.
It make no difference where this takes place. The flying field, the high way or on a forum like this. If a law or rule is made that can't be enforced. Then the law is flawed.
In my humble way, you are correct

The vicarious liability involved in a local club rule isn't so much the likely random inforcement. Its the fact that the club has made record that it is aware of a safety issue and has decided to continue to operate. From that moment on, the club is now exposed whenever there is any incidentinvolving that issue. (Which is very likely going to be always.) A plaintiff , ( or his lawyer), need only go read the local rule boardto phrase his complaint properly.

I had a twinge of deja vu re this topic, confirmed by a search of the term on the AMA website. From the Apr '07 EC meeting minutes:

"MOTION IX: Moved by D. Mathewson (II), seconded by T. Stillman (V) to accept the recommendation of the Insurance Committee to approach our insurance company to modify language in the Westchester General Liability Policy to provide primary general liability protection to officers of AMA Chartered Clubs in good standing for vicarious liability for the actions of others.
*Note: This additional coverage is for the five officers listed on the club officer sheet, i.e. President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer and Safety Officer (coordinator), this is assuming that one of the above officers is also named as the contact person for that club.
MOTION passed: 12-Y; 1-Abstention (NAA)"

So, the concern of vicarious liability has been addressed by AMA. I didn't continue the search to verify that the insurance company has actually added this coverage.

The higher pull test refered to in the post by cj_rumley was brought to us by no other than the originator of this thread.

So then, God...... what should the safety factor for the pull test be based on?

Interesting views here, The vicarious libility thing has been around for twenty years or so as far as I can remember. I retired from Law Enforcement 11 years ago and as a supervisor the state mandated training stressing how to protect yourself and the agency. If there is a question put the issue in writing (if serious and beyond your control) to your supervisor or someone above you. It becomes his problem at that point.
BeePee is right, don't overburden with rules that can't be enforced. Keep it simple and to the point. What we do flying is mostly common sense with the exception of a few who are wreckless and don't get it! Those are the ones who cause the majority of the problems in many cases and should be delt with.
As I recall the AMA obtained insurance for just this situation several years ago.....

Planes were built for specific loads. When the rules were changed, not all scraped their planes and built to the new specifications. Most likely the higher pull tests damaged the plane internally which then led to failure.

It's sort of like taking a car with good gas milage, adding on mandated "safety" features, and then wondering why the gas milage went to pot.

The AMA insurance is not worth the paper it is written on....