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?