Pros/Cons of a Liability Form for a "friend" you were going to teach to shoot with your guns

[bearcreek]

I'm a CHL instructor so I have brand new shooters with me on the range all the time, many of whom I don't know well or at all. They all sign waivers.

 

[hso]

While it would be legally pointless, it might be a good device to drive home the safety importance.

 

[DaveTNC]

If I don't know them well enough to be comfortable taking them shooting without a waiver, I don't know them well enough to take them shooting.

This is how I feel, so I voted "No".

If they aren't paying attention, acting responsibly and being safe, the session ends.

 

[MillennialGunslinger]

This is how I feel, so I voted "No".

If they aren't paying attention, acting responsibly and being safe, the session ends.

Although I feel like this has been said repeatedly, the whole purpose of a liability form is that everyone signs one regardless of the "feels". The idea is for whoever to have signed before you've got a chance to have an opinion on that person. It's a bit like saying "I don't wear a seat belt, because whenever I feel like the road is dangerous enough to need one, I simply don't drive". The idea is to provide protection as a habit. The whole point of an accident is that you didn't see it coming.

I think the "No" because it doesn't provide any protection is a good answer (and the conclusion I've reached from the post), but saying "no" because of any judgment on the person makes me think that the person misunderstood the question.

 

[DaveTNC]

Maybe I did misunderstand the question. I wouldn't take anyone that I didn't know to the range. I have a coworker that has shown interest in shooting that I offered to take sometime. We're not really friends, but I know him well enough to know he's a responsible person. I won't make him sign a waiver before we go, because like several have said, it's probably not worth the paper it's written on and if it turns out I've misjudged him and he's reckless we'll just go home. But I like to think I'm a pretty good judge of a person, too. As for a "friend of a friend", I don't think they'd be invited unless I know them, too, so maybe the poll doesn't apply for my case.

 

[MillennialGunslinger]

I wouldn't take anyone that I didn't know to the range. I have a coworker that has shown interest in shooting that I offered to take sometime. We're not really friends, but I know him well enough to know he's a responsible person

That coworker is a good example. Sometimes I do take friends of a friend, or family of a friend, though. Really any time I have an excuse to give someone the first time range experience I would have liked to have myself, or simply help some feel comfortable instead of scared of firearms, I'm generally happy to oblige. I've never felt scared by anyone I was actually shooting with, but I was wondering about the issue regardless. And I've never thought about (much less done) the waiver issue until a few days ago. Since I didn't see much info online, I asked. Thankfully the consensus is that it's not worth the hassle. Which is good news.

 

[Spats McGee]

I'm a CHL instructor so I have brand new shooters with me on the range all the time, many of whom I don't know well or at all. They all sign waivers.

I think that's perfectly reasonable and understandable, given that taking strangers to the range is part of your business. Given that I am not in such a business, I tell total strangers to go find a professional instructor. I would take folks that I don't know well, but I have to know them well enough to have formed an opinion about them.

 

[fpgt72]

Unless you hand them a defective gun or defective ammo, or give them bad instruction, I'm not sure what you'd be liable for.

anything that went wrong.

 

[Spats McGee]

I think the "No" because it doesn't provide any protection is a good answer (and the conclusion I've reached from the post), but saying "no" because of any judgment on the person makes me think that the person misunderstood the question.

No, I think those of us who answered no because we make personal judgments about the person who wants to go to the range have understood the question just fine. How about "no, because I don't think the waiver (which will be construed against me (as the drafter) in the event of an ambiguity) will provide any better protection than my ability to judge with whom I'm comfortable going to the range?"

 

[fpgt72]

That coworker is a good example. Sometimes I do take friends of a friend, or family of a friend, though. Really any time I have an excuse to give someone the first time range experience I would have liked to have myself, or simply help some feel comfortable instead of scared of firearms, I'm generally happy to oblige. I've never felt scared by anyone I was actually shooting with, but I was wondering about the issue regardless. And I've never thought about (much less done) the waiver issue until a few days ago. Since I didn't see much info online, I asked. Thankfully the consensus is that it's not worth the hassle. Which is good news.

I fall back to be smart about it....real smart and know your ABC's.

I don't ever start someone with an automatic...never ever...a bolt gun, loaded one at a time. (this is for a new noobie) stress that you did not take your drivers test then go to the indy 500....there is a learning curve. There are things to do and not to do.

As to your form....good luck, it is not going to stop anyone from filing a suit against you.

 

[hdwhit]

Who drafted the form? What does it cover? What is its purpose? Unless you know what you are going to be doing, what liability that could entail and you had a lawyer write the waiver to protect you against that liability, it could do more harm than good. If you do no form you can claim you weren't aware of any potential liability for a particular action, but an improperly drafted form shows you knew the risk but were unwilling to find out the true extent of the liability and your duties to minimize it.

 

[MillennialGunslinger]

No, I think those of us who answered no because we make personal judgments about the person who wants to go to the range have understood the question just fine.

Regarding judgments, regardless I tend to apply Codrea's Rule (or whoever said it). In this case, if I'd feel safe drinking a beer with you, I'd probably feel safe shooting with you. If I wouldn't, then I wouldn't take you shooting anyway so forms are irrelevant. Shooting safely is something a child could do. I'd like to think it is hard to find an adult that would be unsafe around firearms in a range setting with basic training. That isn't to say they don't exist however.

I don't ever start someone with an automatic...never ever...

I don't see anything wrong with shooting autoloaders. I just do the same thing you mention. A single round in the chamber and see how they handle.

As to your form....good luck, it is not going to stop anyone from filing a suit against you.

It's ironic that the double conclusion in this post is "Don't worry, there is nothing to sue you about" (save for the blatant) and "Don't bother, they can sue you anyway". Ohh the beauties of the legal world.

Who drafted the form? What does it cover? What is its purpose?

This is a hypothetical situation. Just a question. It's amazing how many lawyers are around here. It feels almost as much a legal forum as a firearm forum. But I'll say it again, it's good to hear that the general consensus is that it's not necessary/beneficial, regardless of anyone's particular reasoning behind that.

 

[bassjam]

I've only had a new shooter out once when somebody got hurt, but I still wouldn't make anyone sign a waiver.

A buddy and I were taking a friend of our clay pigeon shooting. She had shot .22 rifles before, but nothing larger. After some safety discussion we let her try the shotgun. I don't really remember how she shot, but I do know she decided that throwing the clay pigeons looked like more fun so she asked to try that next. We kind of figured it was self explanatory so we showed her how to turn the clays when you insert them to keep them from breaking (this was a plastic hand thrower) gave her a couple practice throws and then set her off about 30 feet to the right of us, with my buddy and I lined up to shoot.

We yell "pull", and out of the corner of my eye I see a clay pigeon flying straight towards us!! It caught my buddy right in the temple and he crumpled to the ground. It drew blood, but not enough to make us quite. We did move our newbie thrower to the left of us after that.

 

[ford8nr]

. I'd like to think it is hard to find an adult that would be unsafe around firearms in a range setting with basic training. That isn't to say they don't exist however.

That quote scares the crap out of me. Being a Range Safety Officer and NRA Certified Instructor I've seen plenty. They are safe till they aren't. One mental slip (or two) and things can go south quickly.
I've instructed and trained shooters (volunteer) at many events, most if not all required NRA Certification for liability reasons.
IF an accident was to occur the first thing they will look at is YOUR training and what materials and equipment you were using. Now charging for your services opens up a whole 'nother can of worms.
And remember anything posted here about your views of new shooters could become evidence in a trial.
Just sayin'

 

[readyeddy]

While it would be legally pointless, it might be a good device to drive home the safety importance.

Most well written waivers include a description of the inherent dangers and a safety check list. It is an educational tool as well as an attempt to limit one's liability. And although the liability waiver may be found to be unenforceable, the documented act of educating the participant could end up being relevant evidence in proving the performance of the applicable standard of care.

 

[MillennialGunslinger]

Being a Range Safety Officer and NRA Certified Instructor I've seen plenty. They are safe till they aren't.

Sure, I imagine you have. Given how many people you've probably trained or been near while someone trained (which I'd imagine to be in the thousands), of which there isn't really any vetting possible (I imagine they come to you as strangers. Unlike hand picked people one knows) it's pretty inevitable. That was just a casual, off the cuff fun generalization. While I could have made that clearer, especially by adding "being supervised and corrected when necessary", adding exceptions or what if's and so forth; this is a forum after all and I don't really intend to add a disclaimer to everything I say or write as if I'd think someone were going to use that post as legal evidence. If a post like that ever made a decisive difference in anyone's case, it was screwed to begin with (much like the case of modified CCW's). But I imagine it would simply be laughed off by one's lawyer first. If an accident were to happen, I'm pretty sure what they would look at foremost is what happened. And given that nothing has happened, or been close to happening, I'm not really sure what I'm defending here. Even rereading that quote it's pretty benign. But I do totally understand how you could interpret it. It's just difference experience levels.

Most well written waivers include a description of the inherent dangers and a safety check list. It is an educational tool as well as an attempt to limit one's liability. And although the liability waiver may be found to be unenforceable, the documented act of educating the participant could end up being relevant evidence in proving the performance of the applicable standard of care.

This is along the lines of how I would have seen it when I first posted, but you'll find as many people happy to argue that, as you would find those arguing the complete opposite. If this were "a thing", I'd imagine that standard forms would be online much like you can find perfectly suitable standardized rental contracts online (subject to revision and modification as needed, of course, before someone complains). But since no one seems to be doing it at all, there doesn't seem to be a need. Which is great. The last thing that anyone would want is to have to have the mindset that you should get insurance just to take a friend to have some fun at the range.

 

[Mn Fats]

Its a sue everyone for anything type of world these days. I knew a guy who sued his own mom for backing into him with her car while he was drunk driving his dirt bike...and won. Doesn't matter the "friends" you keep. Anyone can turn into a dirtbag. I shoot solo on my property. I don't go as far as waiver signing but this day and age, I wouldn't blame a person one bit for having one. I hate the idea but as the saying goes, better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

 

[mstreddy]

OP, if I understand your question correctly:

Would you ever consider making someone you shoot with sign a liability form

Just curious honestly. I see value in doing so, but it is a bit much, so I'm curious on what other people think.

If you were going to take a (not close) friend shooting, like a friend of a friend, or someone from work, etc; would you ever consider making them sign one of those typical liability forms? I ask this from the point of view that they have never shot a firearm, don't own a firearm and know nothing of firearms, and as such are relying on you for some basic training. As well as the fact that they would be shooting your guns. Probably especially this last point. Might also be worth taking into account that, given that you don't know them all that well, there might be legal or mental issues one is not aware of.

The answer is still NO for me.
Of all the people that I have taken shooting with me, friends, friends of friends, coworkers, coworkers' families, coworker's friends,etc..., the questions I always ask the friend/acquaintance that is bringing along the "+1" is "What is their skill level?, if newbie, will you want me to provide the initial instruction? Do they own a gun, or bring one of mine? Are they OK? (I have low tolerance for a-hles)" And those questions, and their answers may open up other discussion.

Like you, I want as many folks to have a positive range outing experience and introduction to the shooting hobby. I have offered an invitation to many coworkers that expressed an interest. Just last week one of my coworkers asked if he could bring his daughter (early 20's) so I could teach her. It was her first ever experience in handling and shooting a gun. Her boyfriend also joined us. He had some limited experience, owns a rifle, has hunted, but hasn't done much handgun shooting. I took both through the safety basics, firearms handling basics, sighting, etc, and we went in to the range. I had them rotate through the firing of first a 22 revolver for a couple of cylinders full, then a 22 semi-auto, and he progressed to 9MM but she didn't want to go there. She did enjoy the suppressed 22 a whole lot. I was her favorite of the evening. A point to note in this story is that her parents had been to the range for the first time ever in their lives just last month when they came out with me. They are now considering getting their CWL.

BTW, sometimes some of my guns are shot more by the guests than by me. When I break out the 22 with the suppressor, a lot of folks start looking. I have no problem with letting most anyone take a few shots with it. And as I always say when they start smiling and even giggling is "It's the most fun you can have with your clothes on! Shooting it naked can burn the naughty bits..."

 

[BSA1]

If I don't know them well enough to be comfortable taking them shooting without a waiver, I don't know them well enough to take them shooting.

Ditto!!!

 

[MillennialGunslinger]

Ditto!!!

What would knowing them have to do with anything if they get a squib load and your gun decides to disassemble in their hand? And they decide you have money, whereas they don't have any healthcare. Just an off the top of my head example, for pure speculation purposes of course. Sure it is unlikely, and sure it is in theory avoidable or not your fault, but it is a possibility that has nothing to do with "knowing" the person or not.

I'm not defending either using or not a form. I'm just saying that claiming to know the person or not as the sole justification is short sighted. I intend to keep taking new people to shoot whenever I feel like it, and not use a form like always, but I'd rather be informed about the issue regardless.

 

[9MMare]

I'd talk to a lawyer with expertise in that area. And try to find out through my home insurance (if it will take place on my property), but not in an overt way to generate interest.

 

[9MMare]

If I don't know them well enough to be comfortable taking them shooting without a waiver, I don't know them well enough to take them shooting.

Depending on their injuries, it may not be up to them. Their health care provider may decide to go after you (or your health or home insurer) for medical expenses, for instance.

 

[hdwhit]

bearcreek wrote:
I'm a CHL instructor ... They all sign waivers.

And as someone holding themselves out as a professional in the business of offering firearms training you would be irresponsible not to have waiver forms signed. I suspect they would be required by your insurance carrier even if you didn't think them necessary.

The question here is whether it is appropriate or necessary in the case of two acquaintances who are not in a business relationship.

 

[hdwhit]

Millenial Gunslinger wrote:
This is a hypothetical situation. Just a question.

You started this thread asking about having someone sign a waiver of their legal right to seek redress from you for anything you did wrong as their firearms "instructor". You must have had a reason in mind for raising the question which is why I asked the question what your purpose in asking about a liability waiver was.

And corollary to that is the question of who prepared the form because a form written in pencil on notebook paper and signed by the parties may still be a legally binding contract, but it is likely to be greeted by the court in a different light than one taken from a package of proforma legal forms you picked up at Office Max and that will be different still from one prepared by the attorney who is standing next to you as your advocate.

It's amazing how many lawyers are around here.

I am not an attorney. I am a forensic engineer and a lot of my work consists of advising attorneys on the technical aspects of a dispute - usually civil liability - they are negotiating and/or appearing as an expert witness for my client. So, being immersed in civil liability, I have learned some of the cogent questions to ask.

It feels almost as much a legal forum as a firearm forum.

And since you asked a question that involved avoiding civil liability for an accident or negligent act committed while you were training someone else with a firearm (that is holding yourself out to the other person as someone knowledgeable about the subject), it is a legal question and could very well be at home in the Legal forum on this site.

This is a hypothetical situation.

For now, perhaps. But it ceases to be a hypothetical as soon as you and your "student" meet at the range. And that is clearly what you were anticipating otherwise there would have been no point asking the question about a liability waiver in the first place.

 

[MillennialGunslinger]

You started this thread asking about having someone sign a waiver of their legal right to seek redress from you for anything you did wrong as their firearms "instructor". You must have had a reason in mind for raising the question which is why I asked the question what your purpose in asking about a liability waiver was.

Not necessarily anything I did wrong. I'm not concerned with that to the extent that I trust myself to not do something wrong via proper guidance. What I was wondering was if I should be concerned about someone doing something wrong themselves and then blaming someone else for it (me). Or firearm malfunctions with harm involved. As for the reason, well for the same reason everyone is scared of a lawsuit for any reason nowadays. If college students are encouraged to get signed and photogaphed consent forms before hooking up (yes, it is a thing), than it certainly would be reasonable for me to at least ask what other shooters are doing. I'm not any more concerned with liability then a college student is with their one night stand accusing them of rape the morning after, but nonetheless it is something that one should probably be aware of.

More than "a waiver of their legal right to seek redress", what I would have imagined was a document stating, casually speaking, "shooting is dangerous. You are aware it is dangerous. And you choose to do so anyway under your own responsibility". I simply like being informed and doing things right. Posting the thread fulfills the first to accomplish the second.

For now, perhaps. But it ceases to be a hypothetical as soon as you and your "student" meet at the range.

Hypothetical in the sense that no form exists, nor did anyone draft "it", nor has "it" ever been used.

While I'll admit some answers are a bit overwhelming compared to what one would have expected in a firearm forum (and I admit to have never been a member of any other firearm forum, but other hobby forums don't receive nearly as much scrutiny), once one gives it some time to sink in, the quality and credibility of some posts and posters are certainly impressive, in a good way. The first impression may be a bit defensive, but I unreservedly appreciate it.