Squadron Building Safety

[wingnut55]

If the Squadron owned building is unsafe and disrepair, is the National CAP responsible if a CAP member is injured by the stairs collapsing or unsafe electrical situations.?


What about cadets or visitors?

Could the Squadron staff (Commander etc) be held financially responsible in a suit?

[CadetProgramGuy]

If the Squadron owned building is unsafe and disrepair, is the National CAP responsible if a CAP member is injured by the stairs collapsing or unsafe electrical situations.?


What about cadets or visitors?

Could the Squadron staff (Commander etc) be held financially responsible in a suit?

The squadron commander is the one responsible for safe operations.  If the building is as unsafe as you are mentioning, then darn skippy, the Squadron CC is responsible for keeping members safe.

However, if the squadron CC declares an area off limits, and the member still enters into that area, then things could be different.   Also remember that each member is responsible for the safety of everyone else as well, (every member is a safety officer)

[RiverAux]

Yes, CAP would be on the hook for injuries to its members in these situations.  However, you would hope that our safety program would identify potential problems such as you describe ahead of time and get them fixed. 

[SJFedor]

If the Squadron owned building is unsafe and disrepair, is the National CAP responsible if a CAP member is injured by the stairs collapsing or unsafe electrical situations.?


What about cadets or visitors?

Could the Squadron staff (Commander etc) be held financially responsible in a suit?

Yes, because individual Squadron's don't own anything. CAP, Inc. owns the building.

[RiverAux]

Has nothing at all to do with who owns the building but that you're attending a CAP activity when you get hurt that counts. 

[Ned]

Could the Squadron staff (Commander etc) be held financially responsible in a suit?

I'm not sure asking legal questions to non-lawyers in a public internet  forum is likely to produce a meaningful response.  Indeed, it seems most likely to produce misleading, incomplete, and incorrect responses.

(In fact, several of the "answers" you have already received are incorrect, depending on the specific circumstances.)

The good news is that CAP has a boatload of lawyers who are charged with providing free legal support to commanders and members.

May I suggest you sent this particular inquiry that way.

Ned Lee
Former CAP Legal Officer

[wingnut55]

That is my point I think we all assume NHQ will pay for a Boo Boo, I remember as a local Little league Board member we were informed by National Little league that although they had insurance for a set amount. Negligence on the part of the Board (locally) opened us all to the suit, and National little league would not protect us if we broke the law.

well we had a mass exodus of  board members.

If your building is illegally modified by a basement electrician, illegal modifications without permits? using a Korean war surplus heater?

Look we are all constantly scrambling to keep our squadrons afloat On our own, at our own expense. . .

this is hypothetical

and where else can we discuss these things but in a forum like this.

[heliodoc]

Hey let's get all the Wing legal officers to print everything that is "free to all members"

It would be nice to know up front ALLLLLLL these permutations and combinations that CAP needs to to keep its members out of a butt binding problem.

Ya I know the "common sense" issue.  The safety issue when CAP CFI's are on board and problems arise either flying or putting airplanes away.  We all know what happens then..

Again, maybe the Wing legal eagles could put a little information brochure off all the possible problems.....

Folks renting out or in spaces not for human habitation, and Wing and NHQ knowledge of these problems, well that smacks of complicity on those folks parts. 

Maybe those "little" site and airfield inspections we were taught by Army Safety School, could put the hurt on some some substandard meeting places.

Granted, it may send a Sqdn out on the street.  But Both Sqdn Commanders and Wing CC ought to be in the know about the diffrent squadron real estate in the various Wings

AND THEN, maybe the that can be delegated down to those different Wing and NHQ lawyers........they ought to maybe focus on these problems as well as the CAP flying program

Check with AASF and Army Aviation on safety inspections

[Ned]

That is my point  [. . .]

this is hypothetical

and where else can we discuss these things but in a forum like this. 

Ahhh.  My mistake.

I had foolishly assumed that since you were asking a question that you were actually seeking information.

Instead, you were just making some sort of legal point.

Sorry, my bad.  Feel free to give legal advice to CAP members in this forum.  I'm sure it will do them some good and not mislead them at all


Ned Lee
Former Legal Officer

[wingnut55]

No Ned I was asking, What do you think  ?

[Ned]

No Ned I was asking, What do you think  ?

Well, I'm thinking that "if Squadron X's building had a defect and person Y sustained injuries, would the squadron commander be personally liable?" is a legal question that can and should only be answered by a lawyer.

And the answer will be intensely fact-driven and depend on a lot of things like the exact nature of the defect, who caused the defect, whether is was obvious or latent, the nature of the injured person, whether the injured person was responsible for their own injury in whole or part, the ownership of the building, the identity of the parties who are responsible for the maintenance and or construction of the building, the environmental conditions at the time of the injury, the nature of the injury itself and whether it was cared for properly, and at least a dozen other potential factors.

And since the matter will ultimately be decided by state law and state laws vary significantly in this area, add in the location of the injury.

Put this all together and you get a sense of why the question cannot be answered meaningully "hypothetically."

People who answer legal questions like this are practicing law.  In most jurisdictions practicing law without a license (even on the internet) is illegal.  Even licensed lawyers who answer such questions will not want to do so without all of the facts just like a physician will not want to diagnose an illness without an actual physical examination.



But if it helps, let's just chat a bit about philosophy.  Using the elements of your "little league" post above, assuming that a person has been "negligent" and/or broken the law and thereby causes an injury, why wouldn't we as a society want that person to be liable to the injured party?

Isn't that the whole point of passing laws and encouraging folks not to be negligent to the extent that others are injured?

On a purely philosophical basis, it doesn't sound like a bad thing.  It sounds like a good thing.

(Edit for spelling and clarity.)