Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have a legal question for anyone who might know... or wish to discuss this. My friend has asked me. I have no clue if she's right or wrong, but in our sue-happy world she raises a valid concern IMHO.
A friend of mine (Julia) started a local day-trip group. Members car-pool and travel locally. Sometimes they'll stay overnight in tents, campers or a motel, but mostly they leave and return in a single day. The only rule is a No Pets Permitted rule. She and the first few members decided that was best for them. But now other members are asking that dogs be allowed to travel with them. Julia says it's turning into an uncomfortable "us vs. them" deal.
Julia isn't a dog hater. She loves all animals. Julia fears that if a member's dog bites someone, she can be sued because she's the organizer who authorized dogs to join them on the outings.
Considering that anyone can sue someone for any reason, would Julia be putting herself at risk by allowing dogs? Suppose the dog owner casually mentioned one day that the dog "nipped" someone in the past? Does that make Julia an "accessory to the crime" if the dog nips again? Suppose a member's dog lifts his leg to a member's tent or expensive piece of camping equipment? Is it the organizer's responsibility to help pay the costs? Suppose the dog has an accident in another members vehicle? Is it the Organizer's responsibility to help pay for the cleaning?
The more Julia asked these questions, the more I understand why she doesn't permit dogs. If it were me I'd stick with the No Pet policy... and tell dog owners to go find another group to join.
What's wrong with her continuing to say no? It isn't a popularity contest; it's a camping group. I'm the biggest dog lover in the world myself, but I wouldn't even consider bring my dogs on a camping trip with strangers. I have no idea how they'll react to everyone. There are too many unknown variables I can't control. New members can either go along with the policy or find another group. Problem solved.
What's wrong with her continuing to say no? It isn't a popularity contest; it's a camping group. I'm the biggest dog lover in the world myself, but I wouldn't even consider bring my dogs on a camping trip with strangers. I have no idea how they'll react to everyone. There are too many unknown variables I can't control. New members can either go along with the policy or find another group. Problem solved.
It's not really camping, it's day-tripping in personal vehicles, but in essence it's the same thing --- strangers getting together in close surroundings.
What you've said is exactly what I told Julia. THANK YOU! Trying to please everybody is a disaster waiting to explode in her face. If dog people want a dog-accepting group, they should go start one.
I have a legal question for anyone who might know... or wish to discuss this. My friend has asked me. I have no clue if she's right or wrong, but in our sue-happy world she raises a valid concern IMHO.
A friend of mine (Julia) started a local day-trip group. Members car-pool and travel locally. Sometimes they'll stay overnight in tents, campers or a motel, but mostly they leave and return in a single day. The only rule is a No Pets Permitted rule. She and the first few members decided that was best for them. But now other members are asking that dogs be allowed to travel with them. Julia says it's turning into an uncomfortable "us vs. them" deal.
Julia isn't a dog hater. She loves all animals. Julia fears that if a member's dog bites someone, she can be sued because she's the organizer who authorized dogs to join them on the outings.
Considering that anyone can sue someone for any reason, would Julia be putting herself at risk by allowing dogs? Suppose the dog owner casually mentioned one day that the dog "nipped" someone in the past? Does that make Julia an "accessory to the crime" if the dog nips again? Suppose a member's dog lifts his leg to a member's tent or expensive piece of camping equipment? Is it the organizer's responsibility to help pay the costs? Suppose the dog has an accident in another members vehicle? Is it the Organizer's responsibility to help pay for the cleaning?
The more Julia asked these questions, the more I understand why she doesn't permit dogs. If it were me I'd stick with the No Pet policy... and tell dog owners to go find another group to join.
Any opinions on this?
I was in a singles group. The rules were basically, you had to be 45-55 and single. That is how the group started out. People who were not of that age group, or in a committed relationship wanted to join and it was a flat out no. Through time, the rules were adjusted when situations that never occurred in the past came up, through experience, and necessity, rules changed. If someone didn't like the rules, they were more than welcome to leave.
Rules are rules and people understood the rules prior to them signing up. If someone who has joined the group doesn't like the rules (happened in many cases in the group I was in) they are more than welcome to start their own group, and make their own rules. It's not that easy to create a viable group and keep it going. All the more power to them. Many who tried failed miserably. Those who want to go on a trip in Julia's group know NO DOGS. Plain and simple, and easy to understand.
About a month ago, I was on a hike and there was someone who has a dog on a leash in a group behind us did, and they allowed the lead out and the dog almost tripped me...thankfully, he didn't, but too close for me. People just don't think, nor have respect. There is a leash law on the trails I frequent but you would think dog people would go blind if they ever laid eyes on them. It doesn't pertain to them and their dog. They let the dogs run ahead, in to the woods, and not only can they scare the crap out of you when they come barreling out of the woods, should someone be scared of dogs, this is a terrible situation to put someone in. We've been on trails where 2 owners have had their dogs, one on a leash, on not. They started fighting and one had to control their dog and the other one had control of their dog. I love dogs, just not big one like pits, rots, but I don't like it when any dog is off it's leash on a confined, and most times, tiny trail.
There are possibilities that someone could sue Julia on a trip from a dog incident. There are possibilities that someone could sue Julia if their car got in an accident during one of these trips. There's a possibility that Julia could be sue is someone broke their leg on a hike due to their own negligence/clumsiness because Julia organized the hike. There's a possibility Julia could be sued if a strong wind uprooted a badly hammered in tent stake and it hits someone. As mentioned, nowadays, you could be sued for just about anything and everything.
Julia needs to stick to the rules she makes. Since it's a new group, she will have to revise them as she goes, it's a learning experience. What cap is on the membership? Things like this. Some people won't like her rules. She must of started this group because there were none that fit her liking to join, so she took the plunge and made her own.
Tell Julia to stand her ground. She may lose people, but oh well. Others who don't want to be around dogs will join. It may be keeping some people from joining in the first place, or the reason they haven't come back when they did see dogs. And as far as worrying about suing, there's nothing you can do about this, just hope nothing ever happens that it could be a possibility. Just tell her, you can't make everyone happy!
Depending on her state's statutes regarding the liability of a business owner or event planner. Assuming she isn't doing this for free, then she may follow the same laws as a business owner.
Most states will hold the business owner accountable for the actions of its employees and other liability issues (I.e. slip and fall). The reason being is that a customer, by paying X amount to obtain services from the provider, unless represented that they may be at risk for dog bites and acknowledges in writing and still enter the accept said service, the owner is responsible. Even if a waiver of hold harmless is signed, depending on how it is written and the state's rules, the person who was harmed may have standing to sue. It's an icky situation where attorneys may have to get involved if your friend really wants to defend her case, and may still lose. As the service provider, her ultimate responsibility is to make sure her patrons are safe.
By allowing dogs, she is at risk. This includes people who brought in a dog without permission. They can sign all the paperwork including they would be responsible for their dog's action. However, it falls on the owner, again, to provide a safe environment to her patrons. A nip, a bite or innocently knocking someone over by a large dog causing injury (From a scratch to something serious) are all reasons the harmed party can sue for PLUS emotional distress or punitive damages if the judge sees fit. Take into consideration that this is supposed to be a family friendly outing, not a dog park or dog event. Not everyone will know how to approach a dog or wants to be near one.
If your friend is a business owner, they will go after her insurance which most if not all business owners in most states are required to carry (liability insurance). And if her insurance carrier finds out she invited and allowed dogs there without their knowledge, they can rescind their insurance policy and return all her money for material misrep on her policy application. She will be on her own to defend herself. She can hire a good attorney and they can negotiate a good settlement on her behalf. But I highly doubt she can get away with the liability dispute at 100%. No jury in their right mind will agree to that.
So in short, tell your friend to stick to the no pet policy to save herself a potential legal headache.
I betting if your friend checked the places they are going to are No Dogs Allowed places. Just cause they going into the woods dont means dogs are allowed.
Julia really needs to go down to her insurance agents office and buy herself some insurance for her group. I don't know what it is called for club officers, but it is similar to errors and omissions insurance. It's cheap for clubs and for organizers who are not paid for their work.
The club itself should carry liability insurance. Again, not expensive for a non-profit that isn't doing anything dangerous.
The agent can tell her whether or not the insurance would cover dog issues.
Liability aside, I love to take my dogs with me but I very often do not love other people's dogs. A bunch of dogs joining the group might be a negative for many of the members. Plus, unless the group never does anything indoors, there is the issue of dogs left in hot cars.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
and the other one had control of their dog. I love dogs, just not big one like pits, rots, but I don't like it when any dog is off it's leash on a confined, and most times, tiny trail.
