Legal Liability as a GTL

[jpizzo127]

Some of my members are a hesitant to become GTL's.

Does the GTL have any legal protection against liability?

Are we taking a risk when performing any supervisory role, especially when leading Cadets?

[Eclipse]

Does the GTL have any legal protection against liability?

Yes, on A & B Missions we are protected by the FTCA. (and FECA for personal injury)

On C Missions we are protected by corporate liability insurance.

Are we taking a risk when performing any supervisory role, especially when leading Cadets?

When you accept responsibility for a mission tasking or supervision of any CAP person or asset, the biggest risk
is negligence.

Lose a radio, bend an airplane, or break a cadet in the course of normal business, you're ok.  Let it be shown you
were careless and you might be on your own or on the hook for damages.

If you follow the rules to the best of your ability, the risk is minimal.  Anybody can sue anybody.  As long as you
stay inside the lines CAP will protect you.

Some members take out supplemental general liability policies which only cost a few hundred dollars a year (mine for my consulting
business covers me for CAP as well). This is by no means required or even the norm.  Its a personal CYA.

I've been in CAP for over ten years, involved in a number of high-visibility DR missions (both air and ground), command an encampment,
and have about $15k worth of corporate equipment in my garage. 

During that time, the only people I am aware of who have ever had an issue were people who blatantly broke rules they were fully aware of, despite repeated warnings and reprimands.

[Eclipse]

So here's a real-world that could put a GTL in trouble.  We all know who we're talking about, but no sense beating them up even more.

About 4 years ago we had a little mission down South that involved about 1700 CAP people over the course of several weeks.

There were ground teams operating in the disaster area, and their assigned tasking was a methodical, house-to-house well-being check.
The primary goal was mapping out the population so that local EMS could delegate and/or request resources based on where people
had landed after the "unpleasantness".

One state sent a fairly large group of Ground assets and had been working the area for several days.

For starters, they launched in advance of authorization, and as such brought a group of cadets with them.  As it turned out
FEMA rules prohibited anyone under 18 from participating in DR activities, which meant that for about a week they were
all but unsupervised in camp while the majority of the seniors performed their "missions".  Imagine for a second the kind of mischief
cadet-age kids could get into when they are bored and loosely supervised in a no-poop disaster area.

For sure if anything had happened to them there would have been problems, starting right at the GTLs charged with their safety.

The next part is the place with the real issue.

Instead of performing the GIS-Grid-based door-to-door searching as assigned, the team from this state took it upon themselves to
just drive around looking for interesting things and people to "save", while in the meantime marking the grids as complete.
They had other problems, too., and were "asked" to leave shortly after more resources arrived.

The new teams hit the grids within hours of arriving, and found large patches of untouched areas that had been marked as complete.
This included getting intel on a number of elderly residents who were at the end of their food and electricity (breathing machines, etc.),
and resulted in one medevac that was considered for (but not awarded) a save.

This area was immediately outside the base camp, within eye shot of the exits, and had never been checked after a week.

The finding of so much need in a "completed" area forced the new teams and the IC to restart the effort and re-run grids that had already been done.  Bear in mind that for the first few days, the mantra was that CAP was the first uniformed resources anyone had seen, and CAP's acceptance of the missions meant other resources went elsewhere.

The AAR and armchairs afterward included a number of discussions about what the liability would be had someone died inside
one of the "completed" grids, because they were ignored by CAP, and not visited by anyone else because that AOR was assigned to CAP.

This was a case of 100% cowboy negligence, and would be an easy case for a good attorney.  CAP could, in turn, be separated from liability because the teams had ignored orders and SOP's on their own whim.

[vento]

About 4 years ago we had a little mission down South that involved about 1700 CAP people over the course of several weeks.

Sir, you sure redefined the meaning of "little" 

[DG]

About 4 years ago we had a little mission down South that involved about 1700 CAP people over the course of several weeks.

There were ground teams operating in the disaster area, and their assigned tasking was a methodical, house-to-house well-being check.
The primary goal was mapping out the population so that local EMS could delegate and/or request resources based on where people
had landed after the "unpleasantness".

One state sent a fairly large group of Ground assets and had been working the area for several days.

You left out the part where the State EOC was completely non existent.

[DG]

This was a case of 100% cowboy negligence, and would be an easy case for a good attorney. 

You, sir, are no friend of Civil Air Patrol.

If you are a senior member, you should be 2bed for conduct unbecoming an officer, on a public forum.

[DG]

This was a case of 100% cowboy negligence, and would be an easy case for a good attorney.  CAP could, in turn, be separated from liability because the teams had ignored orders and SOP's on their own whim.

You are a fool to make such accusations of negligence and then to assume CAP would be separated from liability.

[RiverAux]

As Eclipse said, we do have some legal protections and I have never heard of any sort of incident.  But, that doesn't mean that you couldn't get sued, just that you would probably win.

There may also be state laws covering CAP members in certain situations as well.

[DG]

One state sent a fairly large group of Ground assets and had been working the area for several days.

and were "asked" to leave shortly after more resources arrived.

They left when they were directed by their wing commander to retire for much needed rest after 10 days of diligent, exhausting and excellent work.

The new resources took over under the direction of Tony Pineda and Rex Glasgow, who resigned a month later.

[DG]

Some of my members are a hesitant to become GTL's.

Does the GTL have any legal protection against liability?

Are we taking a risk when performing any supervisory role, especially when leading Cadets?

Jpizzo,

Does it give you comfort that you may launch a 2 week effort almost 1000 miles from home to an area with no infrastructure or amenities and work hard to the best of your trained ability,

and then have some fool go on a national forum and state that you are guilty of "100% cowboy negligence" and should be sued and a good attorney will have an easy time of it,

and CAP will not stand behind you, but rather will separate themselves from liability?

[davidsinn]

Some of my members are a hesitant to become GTL's.

Does the GTL have any legal protection against liability?

Are we taking a risk when performing any supervisory role, especially when leading Cadets?

Jpizzo,

Does it give you comfort that you may launch a 2 week effort almost 1000 miles from home to an area with no infrastructure or amenities and work hard to the best of your trained ability,

and then have some fool go on a national forum and state that you are guilty of "100% cowboy negligence" and should be sued and a good attorney will have an easy time of it,

and CAP will not stand behind you, but rather will separate themselves from liability?

You don't have a clue.

From the AAR itself:

• Operational Control. Exacerbating the problem listed above, some ground teams
did not consider themselves to be under the operational control of the IC at
Jackson Mission Base. In one particular instance, when a disagreement occurred
between one of the Ground Team Leaders and the IC, the GTL contacted his own
wing commander in order to dispute the instructions given by the IC. This was
completely inappropriate. It is important to note that the only teams that seemed
to have this problem were from the Pennsylvania wing. Additionally, it is
significant to note that the only wing commander who saw fit to contact the IC
was the PA WG CC. Within a short period of time the IC made the determination
that to maintain proper command and control over the forward staging areas,
delegate Ground Branch Directors subordinate to the main Ground Branch
Director at Jackson Mission Base would be deployed at each forward staging area
as staging areas managers.
• Ground Team Failure to Follow Directions. When the problems above were
identified by the IC and Operations Section staff, the decision was made that the
IC (Maj. Younger) and LO (BG Glasgow) would personally depart for the staging
areas with the morning resupply flights in order to brief the ground teams directly.
The hope was that by 1) asserting a more direct influence and 2) providing clear
expectations, that the needed results could be obtained. In the cases of the
Ground Teams at Pascagoula and Wiggins, this tactic was successful, but for
some reason the teams at Stennis still continued to pose problems. In spite of
direct instructions to make themselves available to BG Glasgow for a briefing,
these teams failed to follow those instructions. Furthermore, in spite of the direct
briefing from the General to certain of the Team Leaders, the teams continued to
fall short of complying with their instructions. It is my personal conclusion that
MS Katrina DR After Action Report Page 14 of 21
the particular ground teams in question, all from Pennsylvania Wing, would not
have cooperated under any circumstances. The conclusion is proven by the both
by the performance of the teams that were rotated in to replace the four PA teams
and also by the fact that the staging areas that posed the least command and
control challenges were the ones where the PA WG teams were NOT deployed.

And:

Ground Team Expectations. The initially deployed Ground Teams were either
sent directly into the field by the NOC, or they were self released and simply went
to one of the forward staging areas (in the case of PA WG).

This like that wouldn't need to be said if everybody followed the rules instead of doing their own thing. I've heard other stories about PAWG conduct on that mission but those are all hearsay so I won't repeat them.

[Eclipse]

Let's not turn this into a debate regarding facts already on the record and beaten to death here and elsewhere.

This conversation is about the potential personal liability a GTL might have if they are shown to willfully disobey orders and
some "badness" happens as a result.

DG, buddy, if you're going to hop in on this, at least read the posts and respond to what's been written, without a filter.
I advocated no such thing, and only suggested that outcome as one possibility.

[DG]

Some of my members are a hesitant to become GTL's.

Does the GTL have any legal protection against liability?

Are we taking a risk when performing any supervisory role, especially when leading Cadets?

So Jpizzo,

you feeling any better about your liability?

[DG]

You don't have a clue.

From the AAR itself:

•  When the problems above were
identified by the IC and Operations Section staff, the decision was made that the
IC (Maj. Younger) and LO (BG Glasgow) would personally depart for the staging
areas with the morning resupply flights in order to brief the ground teams directly.
The hope was that by 1) asserting a more direct influence and 2) providing clear
expectations, that the needed results could be obtained.  In spite of
direct instructions to make themselves available to BG Glasgow for a briefing,
these teams failed to follow those instructions. Furthermore, in spite of the direct
briefing from the General to certain of the Team Leaders, the teams continued to
fall short of complying with their instructions.

So you are pointing to Tony Pineda and Rex Glasgow to establish what was right and to prove who was wrong?

Is this the guy you are relying on make your point?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1635659/posts

[Ned]

Capt Pizzo,

You have asked a legal question.

May I gently suggest that it be directed to the very person whose duty it is to answer legal questions in your wing?  The NYWG JA.

Asking legal questions of non-lawyers is not very productive.

The only thing less productive is to ask a legal question on an open internet forum like this one.

You see the results.

Really, just ask your friendly neighborhood JAG.  That is exactly what they are there for.

Ned Lee
(former CAP legal officer)

[DG]

Lt. Sinn,

So you are pointing to Tony Pineda and Rex Glasgow to establish what was right and to prove who was wrong?

Is this the guy you are relying on make your point?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1635659/posts

[davidsinn]

Lt. Sinn,

So you are pointing to Tony Pineda and Rex Glasgow to establish what was right and to prove who was wrong?

Is this the guy you are relying on make your point?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1635659/posts

That is relevant, how? Did you even read the AAR I posted? The sections I quoted were written by Major Owen Younger of TXWG. Fact of the matter is the PAWG personnel on the mission went off the reservation and did their own thing and it could have cost lives. If you follow the rules and your taskings then CAP should protect you. If you do your own thing and lie about it I personally wouldn't have a problem hanging you out to dry.

[Eclipse]

DG - knock it off.

This isn't remotely about them, and the AAR was not written by either of them.

[DG]

So Jpizzo,

you feeling any better about your liability?

[Майор Хаткевич]

So Jpizzo,

you feeling any better about your liability?

Don't you have a pink belt to try on or something?

[Eclipse]

Two lashes with a wet noodle, Aux 04, we don't need more of that.

[Pace]

The bickering needs to stop.  Take it to PM if you must continue.  Ned effectively answered the question that started the thread.  If I see one more post about PAWG related to the Katrina mission, this thread is being locked.

[Major Lord]

I think Ned's answer was as solid as they get, especially when considered from the standpoint of CAP, Inc..  I am confident that a JAG could (if they chose to actually respond to the question, which would have its own particular set of attendant liabilities attached) answer the liability question in how it effects CAP, Inc. I would not presume as a prudent person that you have any special exemption from liability on your part as a GTL, or for that matter, as an ordinary CAP member. On the other hand, I have never heard of a CAP member being held individually liable for any action taking place under their auspices as a CAP member. Does anyone know personally of such a case? 

FYI, I was in the Hurricane Katrina AO for almost a year, and saw some things carried out under color of authority that would shock pretty much anyone outside of Teheran, and aside from a couple of Walmart looters, have never heard much about anyone's ( Police, fire, rescue, paramilitary contractors, military, etc) being targeted for legal reprisal for their actions.

Major Lord

[N Harmon]

The Katrina mission brings up a good question though.

If I am from Michigan Wing, operating in Mississippi Wing, or Louisiana Wing, or wherever, the particular laws about duty to rescue, applicability of good samaritan laws, etc. may very well be different from what would be the case in my home state.

Is this something to be concerned about? Should it be part of a mission briefing when you involve people from other wings as to certain particulars of the local law?

[Major Lord]

I downloaded and read the AAR posted above. FYI, you might double check the spelling of our organization's name before you reuse your letterhead.

Major Lord

[Al Sayre]

Good point, Local laws should be part of any in-briefing for those coming from outside the wing.  Although I believe your actions under CAP authority would be covered by FTCA for anything but gross negligence, what happens when you stop to help someone while you are off duty may be an important fact.  Some places you can legally get shot just for knocking on the door,  for example the LOL who threatened the reporters on her front yard in TX a couple years ago.  That's an important thing to know...

[DG]

I think Ned's answer was as solid as they get, especially when considered from the standpoint of CAP, Inc..  I am confident that a JAG could (if they chose to actually respond to the question, which would have its own particular set of attendant liabilities attached) answer the liability question in how it effects CAP, Inc. I would not presume as a prudent person that you have any special exemption from liability on your part as a GTL, or for that matter, as an ordinary CAP member. On the other hand, I have never heard of a CAP member being held individually liable for any action taking place under their auspices as a CAP member. Does anyone know personally of such a case? 
Major Lord

Major,

Good advice and true. 

Query:  Would the response by the Legal Officer be constrained by the fact that the CAP Legal Officer represents the corporation and has an ethical duty to the corporation as the client?

[DG]

FYI, I was in the Hurricane Katrina AO for almost a year, and saw some things carried out under color of authority that would shock pretty much anyone outside of Teheran, and aside from a couple of Walmart looters, have never heard much about anyone's ( Police, fire, rescue, paramilitary contractors, military, etc) being targeted for legal reprisal for their actions.

Major Lord

Major,

Thank you for bringing some professionalism to this discussion.

Further to your concerns, I can tell you that the FBI is still working the problem, and in fact has a priority task force working the many issues that still are active concerns that came about in re Katrina and the local and state response or lack thereof.

Thank God for the 82nd Airborne, for without their work, after they went boots on the ground, the place would have turned into even more of a hell on earth.

[Ned]

Query:  Would the response by the Legal Officer be constrained by the fact that the CAP Legal Officer represents the corporation and has an ethical duty to the corporation as the client?

Only in the almost-unimaginably rare circumstance where a conflict of interest arose in the discussion itself.  In which case the Legal Officer would say that she/he could not give that bit of advice, and why.  And suggest how to get independent advice.

But as a practical matter, the JA is the most qualified person in the world to answer the particular question raised by the OP.

Random anonymous folks on the internet are the least qualified persons in the world to answer the OPs question.  And this thread is a perfect example of why.  (Mostly, you don't get an answer anyway - you get off-topic reponses motivated by God knows what.  And if you did get a response that purports to answer,  you have no idea how accurate it is.)

CAP legal officers are there to answer CAP-related legal questions.  And they do it extraordinarly well.  They are ethical professionals volunteering for their communities.

[RiverAux]

The fact that you are saying that only a legal officer can answer this question says to me that CAP's legal community has failed in their primary job or else the answer would be extremely obvious to everyone in various CAP documents.  Legal officers are quite sparse on the CAP landscape and basically are not available to the average member.  So, if there is any question at all about this basic issue, the lawyers we have need to make sure the answer is known through other methods. 

Now, I'm not saying that they have to put out a document answering every possible nitpicking question that could arise.  We all know that that is an road with no end. 

But the general issue of legal liability for GTLs (or Mission Pilots, or ICS) should not be a mystery. 

Personally, I think the answer is quite obvious as I stated earlier, but you're saying that it is not, therefore, this post.

[Ned]

Sir,

You are normally a little better at reading for comprehension than this post would indicate.

The fact that you are saying that only a legal officer can answer this question says to me that CAP's legal community has failed in their primary job or else the answer would be extremely obvious to everyone in various CAP documents. 

Sigh.

1.  I never said that "only a legal officer can answer this question."  I said that a legal officer was "best qualified" to answer the question, and "gently suggested" that the OP consult his wing JA.  Really.  Take a moment and scan up the thread and see.

2.  I know you enjoy starting threads and finding "failures" in CAP, but it is an intuitive leap to suggest that since someone asked a question for which you feel the answer is obvious, that somehow the legal community has failed.  Especially since the OP does not appear to have asked his question of a JA.  It is hard to imagine that the JA has "failed" to answer a question that she/he has not been asked.

Legal officers are quite sparse on the CAP landscape and basically are not available to the average member.

It's certainly true that most squadrons do not have a legal officer.  Of course, most members will never need to consult a legal officer during their CAP careers.  But they certainly are "available."  I served as a group legal officer and certainly answer dozens if not hundreds of questions from "average members."  But even more importantly, the OP is not an "average member", but a unit commander.  Who is authorized to have his own legal officer on staff, and who certainly has access to rosters that facilitates his access to legal officers at higher HQ.

But the general issue of legal liability for GTLs (or Mission Pilots, or ICS) should not be a mystery. 

I don't think it is a mystery.

But I do think it is a legal question.  And legal questions are best answered by legal officers.

Personally, I think the answer is quite obvious as I stated earlier, but you're saying that it is not, therefore, this post.

I never said whether the answer was obvious or not, I just recommended that legal questions be answered by lawyers, not random anonymous folks on the internet who may not even be members of CAP.

But for the sake of argument,  let's take a look at your "answer":

As Eclipse said, we do have some legal protections and I have never heard of any sort of incident.  But, that doesn't mean that you couldn't get sued, just that you would probably win.

There may also be state laws covering CAP members in certain situations as well.

Your answer is essentially, "Just like the other non-lawyer said, we have some unspecified legal protections.  Sure you might get sued (which could cost you thousands of dollars), but you would probably "win."

Oh, and there could be a bunch of other laws that might help or hinder your case, but I don't know about those."

If the OP finds comfort in your "answer," then I guess we are done. It may be significant that the OP has not requested further clarification.  One available inference is that your "obvious" answer was satisfactory.  Another is that the drift about PAWG and Katrina has discouraged him from further participation in the thread.  Perhaps he consulted with a legal officer.  IDK.

My only point in this otherwise pointless thread was to recommend that legal questions be answered by qualified legal officers.

After all,  if you posted a picture of a suspicious-looking mole on your back and asked whether it might be a potential problem, in this wiki-age you would certainly get some answers.  And, I''d be willing to wager that at least some of the answers would be correct.

But you would be a fool to ask a medical questions on the internet and rely on answers posted by anonymous people with little or no medical training.


Just saying . . .

[RiverAux]

Eclipse had already provided the necessary information and I saw no need to repeat it. 

[RADIOMAN015]

Always a good idea to carry personal liability insurance.   CAP definition of "negligence" & resulting members' personal liability differs greatly with what other volunteer agencies are willing to protect their "volunteer, dedicated, unpaid" members from.  Part of the reason is all of those military "wanna bees" in the organization are using a military model of liability versus a more liberal civilian "volunteer" agency model that understands that errors of omission & accidents will occur with volunteers' efforts.   

Another post regarding CAP disaster relief actions down south showed how problematic things can get.   It's interesting that as Civil AIR PATROL, there's much more training for aircrews in their recon/photo roles after a disaster (Of course that's what we really are here for as an organization).  Checking the Ground Team SQTR (and training informaton on the Nat Hq site) nothing specific can be found regarding disaster relief support training, to include neighborhood welfare check procedures or even the use of GPS equipment.

CAP is looking for more "ground type" missons for its' ground teams to perform.  HOWEVER, the point is that as a GTL IF any mission comes up that you & your team don't have specific "documented" training for (to include most diaster relief missions at the present time), don't agree to take the mission.
RM
 

[321EOD]

FEMA rules prohibited anyone under 18 from participating in DR activities,
anyone had seen, and CAP's acceptance of the missions meant other resources went elsewhere.


Is this true? does anyone have an official reference to confirm?

Under what conditions would this restriction apply (other than CAPs own CPPT considerations - keeping young teens away from gruesome-ness etc)

Would this rule apply in any federally mandated disaster? flood relief, hurricane, tornado damage etc?

thanks

[SARDOC]

The Katrina mission brings up a good question though.

If I am from Michigan Wing, operating in Mississippi Wing, or Louisiana Wing, or wherever, the particular laws about duty to rescue, applicability of good samaritan laws, etc. may very well be different from what would be the case in my home state.

Is this something to be concerned about? Should it be part of a mission briefing when you involve people from other wings as to certain particulars of the local law?

It depends on how the request comes in.  If you are federalized (subject to the Posse comitatus Act) then the sponsoring agency is responsible for liability coverage, if that's the case you should receive specific instructions in your orientation briefing (pay Attention) most of the time if you can articulate your actions are consistent with your training and in the best interest of the mission at hand, you should be okay.  If the Request comes through EMAC (Emergency Management Assistance compact) as a state resource then you need to check with your State Office of Emergency Management to see what is covered in the MOU agreement.