ccw instuctor liability

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

testosterone

Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
226
Is anyone aware of a case where an instructor put someone through a pistol safety class, the student went on to get a permit and then the student did something stupid with there pistol and the instructor was found liable in any way?

it has been suggested to me that this "could happen".
 
Any reputable instructor will carry a policy protecting against personal liability. Further, students are generally required to sign waivers for the instructor and for the range in use, if they are two distinct entities. I know your question is in regards to future events and not just the day of training, but I will get to that.

In order for the instructor to be held liable there would have to be a gross negligence on the part of the instructor. That would entail presenting a technique or providing information that is so blatantly wrong that it would shock a reasonable person.

A simple disagreement in the way that material is presented or delivered is generally not cause for incurring liability, i.e. Weaver vs. Isocoles stances. "Well, if he (instructor) had taught my client to stand square to the target the round would have hit the bullet resistant vest instead of entering under the arm." That is a difference in methodologies and not cause for liability.

However, it is possible that an instructor could incur liability if their teachings are outside of the accepted norms of the firearms community. "It is ok to dry fire your weapon at someone as long as you know the weapon is clear." Such statements that are so shocking are likely not to be covered under even the best of policies. It would probably be determined that no reasonable instructor would give such advice.

Another item that would likely be addressed is whether or not the person is actually an "instructor." A personal peeve of mine, but it seems that just about anyone is willing to call themselves an instructor, regardless of any credentials that would support such a claim. When a person obtains an insurance policy as a firearms instructor they must generally attest by signature that they are indeed an accredited/certified instructor (by NRA, military, police, etc). Many are not yet sign as such. Some "instructors" call themselves such because they think they've gone to enough "you name it" schools as a student to self qualify themselves as an instructor, hold a super duper rating in bowling pin shooting, or are "self taught" and just "good enough to teach." If they are found out, the coverage is likely null and void.

The long and short of it is this. If the person is an accredited instructor, carrying a valid certificate of liability insurance, and presenting techniques/information that is reasonable based upon established and traditional training regimes, it is highly unlikely that they will be held personally liable for an event occurring outside of their immediate dominion and control.
 
Last edited:
Joshua,

Thanks for that information. This question came up recently at our club. Members who are NRA certified instructors are running classes on club property. The question was "what if one of these students goes and shoots up a mcdonalds, can the club be held liable because they got there safety training here."

The distinction is, the club is not running the class, the member is, but I don't think that would hold up. The club by allowing it is accepting some level of responsibility.

That seems incredibly far fetched, but a case can be made for anything.

-T
 
If you rear end someone, is your drivers ed teacher responsible?

If you flunk out of college, are your high school teachers responsible?

People make their own decisions and actions.
 
I understand the distinction between the club holding the training and the member holding the training. To be certain, the club does have a responsibility to ensure that the instructor is duly authorized to teach. While it is not required, it is recommended that the club be provided a copy of that instructor's certificate of insurance, aside from any liability insurance that the club already has.

The fact is that whether the club officially sponsors the training or not they are sanctioning the event by allowing use of the facility. Indeed, they are accepting a certain level of responsibility.

I hope that this does not deter your club from hosting events. While the club does accept some responsibility during an event, they are arguably more covered than when a regular member shoots there. The student will likely have signed two waivers (one for the club and one for the instructor) and there are two insurance policies in effect. The primary being that of the instructor and the secondary being that of the club. The exception to this would be if the instructor were an employee of the club acting in an official capacity - there would then only be one waiver/one insurance policy.

As an instructor, I have taught across the country as a guest of countless clubs and organizations. It can actually be very beneficial to clubs in terms of exposure and opportunities. As long as the instructor is insured and the club has a reasonable belief that the instructor is of good faith and character, there is very little to be concerned about.

For what it is worth, I am not aware of a club ever having been held liable for an event that occurred subsequent to a training event. While I can envision some attorney somewhere attempting to make the connection, their efforts are extremely likely to end in vain preliminarily. Even in today's courts it would be impossible to provide any distinct connection between lawful training received at an event and subsequent criminal actions executed elsewhere. Such frivilous claims would undoubtedly be fought by insurance carriers resulting in the net loss to a club of zero cents - again in the extremely unlikely case that an action was even brought.
 
This same question comes up regularly on martial arts forums and the answer is always no.
 
All sorts of things are possible.

[1] There may be a fact pattern under which a club could have some liability. For example, if the instructor is truly incompetent, the club management knows that he is, and they sponsor and promote his classes anyway.

[2] Of course we all hope that no club would ever act like that, but a lawyer representing an injured party might try to claim and prove that.

[3] In any case, a lawyer representing in injured party will look around for anyone who might have some legal responsibility on some legally recognized theory.

It looks like chances of a club actually being found liable are pretty slim. Nonetheless, the prudent club, and the prudent instructor, will carry liability insurance. The biggest value of liability insurance is that it covers the costs of defense. The cost to defend against even a bogus claim can be substantial.
 
When I taught self-defense classes I made it abundantly clear to my students that I did not carry any insurance. This was to make sure that if someone got hurt no lawyer would consider me as a lucrative target. Juries are MUCH more likely to award cash prizes if some insurance company is paying for it. A million dollar insurance policy makes you a juicy target.
 
In order for liability to attach, there must be:

DUTY
BREACH OF DUTY
CAUSATION
DAMAGES

That's the tort of negligence. In this case the instructor would likely have a duty over the conduct of his class and would face potential liability for accidents during the class under his control.

It's a much greater stretch to claim that the instructor has a duty to prevent errors beyond the classroom. I've never heard of such a claim, though it could be possible if someone was giving outright dangerous advice (ie load your flintlock up with Unique)

It's an even greater stretch if the activity is criminal, since you have superseding cause issues at that point. Though an exception might be made if the instructor is teaching people how to get away with crimes.

As far as insurance, you want enough but not too much. Too much and you are a juicy target, as well as bankrupt from premiums. The jury won't know about the insurance under evidence rules, but the plaintiff lawyers smell it like a shark smells blood. On the other hand you don't want to be unprotected. If you do this for a living, work with a broker to craft sufficient and reasonable coverage for foreseeable risks.
 
Owen Sparks said:
...I did not carry any insurance. This was to make sure that if someone got hurt no lawyer would consider me as a lucrative target. Juries are MUCH more likely to award cash prizes if some insurance company is paying for it....
Click to expand...
You've made this claim before but failed to supply any supporting evidence in response to my request for some.

As Cosmoline pointed out, a jury will not know whether or not you have insurance.
 
I’m a believer in having a lot of coverage. If there’s a million dollars on the line, you can bet the insurance company is going to be an active participant in your defense. If you have assets in excess of your coverage, you need an umbrella policy. I probably just know enough about it to make me dangerous, but I think a GL policy is there to cover any accidents that may happen during thr training and an E&O policy is what covers the content of the training (ie poor training lead to shooting my toe off).

Op. I would ask the trainer to add your range as ‘additional insured’. Your insurance agent can help you with the wording. Just be careful when approaching your agent, they tend to get nervous pretty easily.
 
At the time I was teaching self-defense I did not own a home and was driving a company car that I technically did not own. I was not a good prospect for a lawsuit and on advice from a lawyer, I did not buy insurance.
 
Owen Sparks said:
At the time I was teaching self-defense I did not own a home and was driving a company car that I technically did not own. I was not a good prospect for a lawsuit...
Click to expand...
Then that might have been fine for you at that time under those circumstances. But some people have assets to protect and need to consider managing things differently.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top