Scouting, liability and being sued

[Bob White]

This is not a glass half empty of half filled situation Ed, this is an example of how untrained or unknowledgable leaders put the entire program at risk. If the commissioner in our story was current on his training, or had read the resources that a comissioner is expected to know, or had done his job in guiding the cubmaster to the official resources of the BSA then there would be a very good ceremony with no injuries and no lawsuits.

 

Now granted the cubmaster had he been trained should have known what the right thing to do would be. But he was told by a BSA representative to hold the boy upside down. So the BSa HAS to defend him.

 

If you were the BSA Ed what would you do with a commissioner that was the core of all the damage, hurt a scout, and had cost the pogram millions of dollars?

 

 

[Bob White]

You asked how lack of training could jeopardize a scouters liability protection, and I offered an example that shows genuine negligence on the part of a volunteer and I am asking if the BSA who is self insured should be expected to defend and finance such negligence.

 

I will open the question up to other posters.

 

If you were the BSA what would you do about the commissioner in this story?

[evmori]

So this isn't real, it's a "for instance".

 

If I was the BSA, I would gather all the facts 1st. Then if it is determined that the commissioner was grossly negligent and this led to the incident, I would move to remove the commissioner. I seriously doubt this could be proved.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Bob White]

How hard would it be to prove? The BSA asks the CM where he learned a ceremony like that and he says "my unit commissioner" so then they ask the unit commissioner, I would expect he would tell the truth, would't you Ed?

 

I pretty much agree with you as to what would happen. The commissioner would likely have his BSA membership removed, his actions and attitute being a danger and detriment to the scouts and the program.

 

 

There is also the possibility that the BSA could file suit against the comissioner to try and regain the finances lost through his negligence. But I am not too sure the BSA would want to draw any more attention to the act. But it is a possibility.

 

So lets ask the next logical question.

 

WHAT IF the scout wasn't dropped during the up-side-down improper ceremony. Is the commissioner less negligent in his role as a commissioner? Granted he was lucky, but is he any less a danger to scouts and scouting based on his behavior?

 

And this is something that anyone can answer. It speaks to the importance not only of going to training but of learning and understanding your role in scouting.

 

 

 

[evmori]

Well you must 1st think the CM is telling the truth because if you ask the commissioner and he/she says they didn't do it, someone is not telling the truth. So the chances of proving who initiated the act is virtually impossible.

 

Actually, packsaddle, these type of situations are great for this kind of problem solving. And the moderators are welcome to join in. Thanks for inviting them, Bob.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[packsaddle]

....waking up....Huh? What?

[evmori]

Oops! Sorry packsaddle! I meant Backpacker! My bad!

[OldGreyEagle]

First, I caution everyone from the aforementioned "Pierre Salinger" syndrome , just becasue you read it on the net, doesnt make it so. If you have BSA Insurance questions, I would ask it of your Council and insist the answers come in writing. If the answers are wrong, at least you can verify you were diligent and have company on the suits being filed. Of course, what I just wrote is as subject to the Pierre Salinger Syndrome as anything else you will read.

 

As far as when the moderators step in, I remember a poster here making the comment that he liked it when an absurd poster posted a lot, it showed the moronic thought process that person held. If people want to play slash each others throat and demean them as much as possible, its tough to control unless we edit every blatant and quesitonable post, and then we get into what is blatant and whats questionable et al. So, go ahead, continue on the scorched earth policy, show everyone who might come across the internet just how small scouters can be

[Bob White]

How the lawyers or investigators FIND the commissioner is not germane to the thread. The question is about liability insurance and negligence so lets stick with that.

 

Do the readers see how the knowledge and training of a volunteer can affect the safety of the scouts? How knowing and following the program can minimize injury and therefore minimize liability exposure? How untrained or irresponsible leadership can lead to negligent acts that would not be defendable and could cost the program millions of dollars each year? (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[stlscouter]

OGE says "As far as when the moderators step in, I remember a poster here making the comment that he liked it when an absurd poster posted a lot, it showed the moronic thought process that person held. If people want to play slash each others throat and demean them as much as possible, its tough to control unless we edit every blatant and quesitonable post, and then we get into what is blatant and whats questionable et al. So, go ahead, continue on the scorched earth policy, show everyone who might come across the internet just how small scouters can be"

 

OGE-I'm glad to see that only moronic and absurd scouters can be small and not those who are not scouters. I'm sure that I have been classified in the former category ( since I have had posts deleted)but my passion for all things Scouting lead me to defend even lash out at those who would destroy the BSA for their glee.

 

[Bob White]

Gentleman PLEASE!

 

All I did was answer a question about how training and liability protection are related. THAT'S ALL!

 

I gave a scenario where a trained experienced volunteer gave bad advice that was in conflict with the BSA policies and resulted in an injury. I asked if the BSA should protect that persons negligence financially or as self-insureds do they have a responsibility to protect those who are following the program and policies?

 

I have not strayed from the topic of the thread. I have answered all questions politely. Aside from not seeming to understand yet how training and negligence play a role in liability protection I don't see that Ed has done anything other than ask questions.

 

Why is anyone upset?

[BrentAllen]

The "turning upside down" ceremony used to happen a lot, at least around here. Evidently, it used to happen other places as well, since the BSA puts the following statement in the Bobcat section of the Tiger book:

"The Boy Scouts of America prohibits any Bobcat ceremony in which boys are physically turned upside down."

I don't know of any cases where a boy was actually dropped and injured. I do know some dads who liked the ceremony, and would continue to do it if they were allowed.

[fling1]

Great topic. Thanks, BW, for injecting a large dose of clarity on this subject, re: "accident vs. liability" and re: "denial of coverage"

 

However, I think we are still in the dark concerning our worst nightmares -- the ones where we get sued into the stone age, divorced and destitute because of one bone-headed decision, or even a misunderstanding of policy.

 

Bob's helpful posts included:

 

Not all together true FScouter. Unlike the accident insurance, the liability protection is based on the party being covered taking reasonable precautions to avoid causing injury. The insurance carrier (in this case the BSA since the liabilty umbrella is self-insured) could abandon the coverage should the volunteer through irresponsible action cause the injury.

 

Not taking available training, and certainly violation of the G2SS requirements could meet such conditions. (emphasis mine)

 

followed up by the even clearer language of:

 

PROVIDED that the CO and leaders showed reasonable effort to avoid injuries. That means they are trained and followed the related policies and procedures set forth by the BSA. Gross negligence could allow the BSA to abandon the coverage or even seek to subrogate its losses from the negligent parties. (emphasis mine)

 

I think it is pretty obvious to us all that the drawing of lines around all of the "coulds" and "mights" and "reasonables" and "negligents" will be up to the lawyers, hence the continuing nightmares. I don't think the training issue is a big deal, since the only required training is YPT, in which we first hear the words "G2SS." However, I strongly doubt BSA takes the position that any failure to meet the bold policy of the G2SS is gross negligence that automatically voids their liability protection.

 

This is a wide and deep forum. Does anyone have any specific knowledge of a single case where a CO or leader suffered the closing, packing, and taking home of their liability umbrella by the BSA, leaving said sad-sack to a sorry soaking as the sole sue-ee? A real-life, specific case would be really helpful for us to gage where that "gross negligence" line has been historically drawn.

 

[nldscout]

According to BSA legal, They have never failed to defend a volunteer no matter how bad the behavior. Remember they are the ones with the DEEP pockets, so they have to defend themselves.

[FScouter]

"According to BSA legal ..."

Do you know where I could read more about that?