Mr.

[Shell in WA- USA 10]

Our troop will be playing laser tag. We are meeting as a group of friends without uniforms and have made it clear to all involved that this is not a scout event. Then after laser tag we are convining for an overnight game night.

[KA6BSA 10]

Thanks Bob White for clarification on the insurance... I don't know the details of that aspect but I do know that all BSA units should be getting tour permits on file for their outings. I have been through BSA insurance lectures at Round Table and it can get complicated. If a unit is not getting tour permits approved properly or if they are not fully disclosing the event's activity then the tour permit is not valid. My point is that it says right on the tour permit that the signature means you have a copy of the G2SS and are following those rules. A tour permit is necessary for all events other than those at the usual meeting place. Now that I made that statement there is probably a technical exceptions someone here will give the details. But the concept is pretty simple that the parents of the boys may not know what is going on and need to rely on the BSA tour permit process to trust that the activities are safe. My own sons have been to friend's birthday parties with laser tag and it isn't a big worry, but since BSA has it on the prohibited list those are the rules and you gotta follow them if you want it to be a BSA outing.

[Bob White 20]

What you said KA6BSA was "If your are going on an outing with no tour permit, or one that is incorrectly issued, then you are not going on a BSA outing."

 

And that is incorrect. You are still on a BSA outing, You may have put the safety of the scouts at risk, and you have certainly endangered the liability protection of the leaders and Charter organization, but it is still on a BSA activity.

[NeilLup 13]

Packsaddle - This is very old information for you now but tomato juice does work. About a decade ago, in downtown Boston where we lived, we had a skunk living under the deck in our yard. At about 11PM New Years day, one of our cats introduced himself to the skunk. So I had to go running down to the local 7/11 saying "I need all your tomato juice RIGHT NOW!"

 

But it was amazing. It cut the odor immediately although even though we shampooed the cat (one very happy pussy there) there still was residual odor for a couple of weeks on the cat.

 

I agree with almost all that Bob White has said. My understanding and observation on liability situations is that the facts are lined up and the more you did in line with BSA policy, the stronger is your case and the "cleaner" is the discussion with the insurance company.

 

So, if your checklist goes

 

1) Tour permit - Yup

2) Following the Guide to Safe Scouting - Yup

3) Two deep leadership - Yup

4) Proper preparation - yup

5) Using common sense - yup

6) Registered members and leaders - yup

 

Then you and the BSA will be standing shoulder to shoulder should there be any controversy with the insurance company.

 

But if instead, it goes

 

1) Tour permit - That's a pain, we don't like to do that

2) Guide to Safe Scouting - our guys really like paintball, so we were playing that

3) Two deep leadership - We started out with two, but one had to go home for the evening

4) Proper preparation - Can of Spam and a sleeping bag, what else do you need?

5) Common sense - There couldn't be any problem with paintball, our adult was playing it too

6) Registered members and leaders - well yeah, there was one under age boy and one girl sibling who was dropped off there but what't the big thing?

 

Then there could indeed be a discussion about whether it was a BSA activity and whether it would be covered. In this case, whomever was injured would sue everybody in sight and the BSA might try to get out of liability stating that with all these deviations, it wasn't a BSA activity or else that the BSA's fraction of liability is exceedingly small (and guess whom that would leave holding the bag.) Would they succeed? Good question and probably determined by the individual facts, court and jury. But you really don't want to have that kind of question asked; you want to have them as in the first case, standing shoulder to shoulder fully covering you with absolutely no question.

 

And, among other things, if you did follow all the rules and guidelines as in the first case, the judge/jury/mediator/arbitrator would likely feel much more kindly toward you and would agree that you had taken all reasonable precautions and the incident was an unfortunate accident with possibly some liability but a much lesser chance of a punitive element. In the latter case, if it looks slapdash and arrogant, then the judge/jury/mediator/arbitrator could look to punish the party who was responsible.

 

Why take the risk?

[packsaddle 753]

OK, the results:

Tomato juice - We didn't have enough so we added in some t-sauce (diluted) and one bottle of ketchup to the t-juice we had on hand. It did seem to help except that when the dog was around it made me hungry for Italian food. On one spot of fur we also tried vinegar and lemon juice. Man, a Caesar's salad would be great right now. Anyway, there was still some residual odor so we tried a peroxide and baking soda concoction that Big Dog sent. That seemed to work very well but I advise anyone repeating the experience to avoid following the vinegar with the baking soda. It wasn't all that bad but the dog seemed alarmed at all the fizzing noise. And the cats, also alarmed, just hissed at the dog.

[KA6BSA 10]

Yes, of course you are right Bob White... my wording "not a BSA outing" was meant to make the point that it would not be an outing executed the way BSA intended. Where do you draw the line ... A troop (all the same boys and leaders of the unit) goes on an activity or campout and plays laser tag, they get a tour permit incorrectly filled out (not listing the prohibited activity) or they don't even file a tour permit, or they don't wear their uniforms, or they go to a campsite not approved by their council for BSA, or they even tell the parents it is not really a Scouting activity, but it is still the "troop" going camping. At what degree of breaking the rules is the outing no longer a valid BSA activity? Maybe you will only find that out when all the claims have been made in the lawsuits if a boy gets hurt. Parents would likely claim it was a troop activity to avoid their own responsibility, and the leaders would be claiming they were told the "troop" was going on a "non-Scouting" activity... whatever that means. Anyway I like the skunk topic better!

[Bob White 20]

It has NOTHING to do with "validity". If the participants, whether youth or adult, are there because of their membership in scouting then it is a scouting activity. What is at question is liability and culpability in case of an injury.

 

The BSA will continue to protect and provide medical coverage for the youth at the activity regardless of how many rules are broken. But if a scout is injured the adult leaders and charter organization could find that, unless they have followed the policies of the BSA, they will be unprotected by the BSA, and the BSA liability umbrella that would normally protect the volunteer from financial loss caused by civil or criminal litigation. They could in fact find themselves being sued by the BSA's insurance company for any losses they or the BSA incur do to the negligence of the leaders or Charter Organization.

 

An unapproved scouting activity is still a scouting activity, it's just that the BSA is not liable or culpable for any problems. You are.(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[packsaddle 753]

OK, I'm often slow on the uptake so let me give it a try here:

 

Scenario 1) KA6BSA loads up his van with neighborhood boys (who coincidentally are members of the troop) and takes them on a birthday celebration to, say, lasertag. Then he alone may be responsible if there is an injury and he and his insurance company (if he has insurance) may have to cover the damages.

 

Scenario 2) KA6BSA loads up his van with neighborhood boys who are members of the troop and takes them to, say, lasertag. He ignores G2SS, doesn't have a copy of it with him, fails to file a tour permit, and tells the parents that it is not an official troop outing.

 

Why would liability and insurance coverage be different between the two scenarios? If BSA covered anything at all in the second scenario it seems that KA6BSA would still be better off. What am I missing?

 

[NeilLup 13]

Not necessarily any from the point of view of KA6BSA. However, in your latter case, if the plaintiff learns that all the boys are Troop members, the plaintiff might well include the Troop, the sponsor, the local council, the BSA and possibly all the other Troop adults as defendants. And the BSA's lawyers will work hard (and probably succeed) in having them removed as defendants. If not, I believe they would be covered.

 

Several years ago, I had the dubious privilege of being a defendant briefly in a BSA related case. I had been Council Commissioner of our council during the time that an incident occurred at one of our council camps. I didn't even visit the camp that summer but was brought in as a defendant. The BSA's lawyers defended me and quickly had me removed as a defendant. No cost to me and very little time.

[Bob White 20]

I am not sure what packsaddles point is. In both cases The adult could be held liable and culpable in case of an injury while in transit to and from the event as well as at the event. In either case unless a lawyer tried to establish a connection to the event and scouting, the BSA would not be involved in any criminal or civil suit.

 

If however a connection was made to the activity and the BSA other repercussions would take place.

 

First the adult would be permanently removed from scouting for vioplating the Youth protection policies. If the BSA were drawn into a suit or suits due to the improper behaviour of the leader then the BSA's insureance company would subrogate against the former leader for their loses. Would the adult have to reach into his own poacket for money? somebody has to pay the lwyer, what if he doesn't have enough insurance or the right insurance to handle the settlements? Good bye house?

 

So what is the difference between the two scenarios? There is none. The adult is on his own in both cases.

 

So where is the difference. Lets have scenario #3.

 

During an approved BSA troop activity, where the policies and procedures of the BSA were followed. A scout is hit by a falling tree limb and killed. The family hires a lawyer who sue....everyone she can. The BSA pays for a lawyer to defend the adults on the trip and the CO. The BSA pays a settlement agreed upon by the parties involved. The Scoutmaster keeps his house his cars and his savings. What did all this cost him? $10 at recharter.

 

Is it worth following the rules? You decide.

 

[packsaddle 753]

Yep, what's that quote from Einstein, "It's a no-brainer"?

[Fat Old Guy 11]

"The Scoutmaster keeps his house his cars and his savings."

 

Fortunately, I live in a state where they cannot take your house or personal property (cars). As for savings, my lawyer says that I don't have enough to spark any interest. SharksLawyers always go after the deepest pocket.

 

 

[KA6BSA 10]

Well I am satisfied with the discussion and ready to move on... unless someone has more about the skunk!