Pelham Fish & Game voted out of the MVPL

Joined
Feb 17, 2008
Messages
541
Likes
1,897
Location
East Tennessee.....Mass transplant
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
The Merrimack Valley Pistol League team captains recently held a meeting regarding the Pelham Club's waiver of liability. The Pelham club mandated anyone shooting at their facility sign a liability waiver that, even due to "gross negligence" on the part of Pelham Fish & Game, waives ALL their resonsibility. Nearly all non-Pelham members declined to sign such a far reaching document. Pelham team captains refused to shoot all their matches as away matches. Reworking their liability waiver document apparently was also not an option, so the club was voted out of the pistol league. The Pelham teams are very competetive and the shooters are a great bunch of people. This is a sad day for shooters due to attornies and insurance companies.[frown]
 
Did anyone consult a NH attorney to determine if it is even possible to waive gross negligence under NH law? Just because a waiver makes a claim does not necessarily make it so.
 
Did anyone consult a NH attorney to determine if it is even possible to waive gross negligence under NH law? Just because a waiver makes a claim does not necessarily make it so.

It's my understanding that a woman that is on their board of directors is an attorney, and wrote the document. Maybe a PF&G member can elaborate or correct me if I am incorrect. I do not belong to Pelham.
 
Last edited:
Did anyone consult a NH attorney to determine if it is even possible to waive gross negligence under NH law? Just because a waiver makes a claim does not necessarily make it so.

+1 Not likely. Particulary if you sign away the rights of your 'heirs'. I always get a kick out of that one.
 
I don't blame the club at all and if I were on the board, I would not be concerned about people not showing up at events because they were worried they might lose the right to sue the club. I'd be more concerned if the waiver extended to all participants and I was giving up the right to sue someone who directly injured me by vehicular or ballistic mishap.
 
I don't know if the lawyer is on the board or not. However, from what I understand, she's the lawyer for GONH.
 
I don't blame the club at all and if I were on the board, I would not be concerned about people not showing up at events because they were worried they might lose the right to sue the club. I'd be more concerned if the waiver extended to all participants and I was giving up the right to sue someone who directly injured me by vehicular or ballistic mishap.

Rob
The waiver is for anybody entering the property not just if you are there to shoot.

Bob
 
Rob
The waiver is for anybody entering the property not just if you are there to shoot.

Bob

And what benefit is it to the club allowing someone enter to just watch and retain the right to seize title to the club if some member or other visitor makes a boneheaded mistake?
 
And what benefit is it to the club allowing someone enter to just watch and retain the right to seize title to the club if some member or other visitor makes a boneheaded mistake?

If I go to Pelham F&G for ANY reason and the railing on a given stairway breaks and I fall down, getting injured, I would like to think I would at least have some recourse. This waiver negates that. Why would I give up my rights due to the club's negligence?
 
If I go to Pelham F&G for ANY reason and the railing on a given stairway breaks and I fall down, getting injured, I would like to think I would at least have some recourse. This waiver negates that. Why would I give up my rights due to the club's negligence?
Different perspectives, I guess. I don't base my decision to enter somewhere based on whether or not I can sue them if the stair railing breaks.
 
Why would I give up my rights due to the club's negligence?

As I said before, if you are attending as spectator what is the benefit to the club that should motivate it to take the risk? Your desire to be able to sue is not a benefit to the club, so I repeat the original question: Why should they allow you to enter if they are not getting a specific benefit from your entry if you insist on retaining the right to cash in if you get hurt?

Why would I give up my rights due to the club's negligence?
You could accept that risk as part of the cost of entry, or choose not to enter - your choice.


Of course, this discussion is all based on the assumption the courts will uphold the validity of th waiver - which is a "sometimes" provisions. Lawyers will generally tell you two things about waivers:

#1: You can't count on them being enforced as written by the courts

#2: You're better off with one than without
 
Last edited:
IANAL, but here's what I've been told about waivers:

- Lawyers advise using them,

- They generally won't hold "legal water" if challenged. HOWEVER many people believe that said waiver prevents them from collecting and therefore many of these people will absorb the personal loss and NOT sue.

- I've been told that one can NOT waive someone else's rights to sue. e.g. I get hurt . . . nothing I sign can prevent my Wife/Children from suing for losses they incur due to my injury.

- I've been told that one can NOT sign away their (or someone else's) civil rights! [Seems like only the gov't can legally take them away w/o recourse. [thinking] ]

The above may or may not be totally true, but when I was a BOD member of a prior gun club, I sat thru meetings where our legal counsel advised us to create a waiver but advised us of the limitations of same.

Personal experience with this: In spite of signs at a supermarket parking lot stating that they weren't responsible for damage/loss to any vehicles parked there, when a moronic shopper let a shopping cart fly into our car (we never saw moron, only the damage and cart), said supermarket paid out $800 (plus car rental) to repair our damage. They advised us that they have a specific procedure for settling such claims.
 
Last edited:
My understanding is, like lens said, that agreements must still stand up in court. Just because you sign it, doesn't guarantee it's legally binding.

Lets say something did happen and it was clearly gross negligence on the clubs behalf. You'd' be hard pressed to find a judged, esp in mass, that would hold that agreement as legally binding. They'd permit a lawsuit to happen anyways.

While I try to say to each their own and i'm not a member of Pelham. In my opinion, Pelham made the wrong decision. NOBODY in their right mind would sign that agreement. I sure as hell would not.
 
My understanding is, like lens said, that agreements must still stand up in court. Just because you sign it, doesn't guarantee it's legally binding.

Lets say something did happen and it was clearly gross negligence on the clubs behalf. You'd' be hard pressed to find a judged, esp in mass, that would hold that agreement as legally binding. They'd permit a lawsuit to happen anyways.

While I try to say to each their own and i'm not a member of Pelham. In my opinion, Pelham made the wrong decision. NOBODY in their right mind would sign that agreement. I sure as hell would not.
When I shot the Tactical Shotgun match there recently, all participants signed the waiver. I guess all those people were "not in their right mind?" I wish I had known! They all had guns!
 
I find it a little funny that so many people who blithely sign waivers associated with membership in and use of their own club facilities, rarely bothering to read them, become so easily upset over the idea of signing a similar waiver in order to use someone else's club. I once suggested to another league that they develop a mutually agreeable waiver for their teams covering all participating clubs. Based on the reaction I got, one might have thought I had suggested that all guns be stored in government controlled facilities for safe keeping.

Ken
 
The Merrimack Valley Pistol League team captains recently held a meeting regarding the Pelham Club's waiver of liability. The Pelham club mandated anyone shooting at their facility sign a liability waiver that, even due to "gross negligence" on the part of Pelham Fish & Game, waives ALL their resonsibility. Nearly all non-Pelham members declined to sign such a far reaching document. Pelham team captains refused to shoot all their matches as away matches. Reworking their liability waiver document apparently was also not an option, so the club was voted out of the pistol league. The Pelham teams are very competetive and the shooters are a great bunch of people. This is a sad day for shooters due to attornies and insurance companies.[frown]
I have been a member of PF&G for about 12 years now. I used to belong to Methuen Rod & Gun until that club was blamed for an accident that obviously wasn't the club's fault. Illegal shooting in a nearby sandpit resulted in an off-duty Somerville firefighter getting hit at a distance, sustaining a severe bruise. Needless to say, the club was blamed and some members of the club were willing to sacrifice the rifle range, as long as trap and indoor pistol were protected. I attended this meeting and told them that if we are willing to sacrifice one, the antis will soon come after the rest. The morons who were on the executive board at the time had no clue how to cover the club's ass, legally. I decided to vote with my feet.
I do not blame PF&G for requiring signed agreements. Schools are requiring them now for class trips, because a number of schools were sued as a result of students behaving like donkeys because mom and dad were not around and were subsequently injured or killed. Stupid is as stupid does. Someone gets injured on PF&G property, even if they are not a member, they could sue the club into bankruptcy. I stand behind my club's decision.
 
Different perspectives, I guess. I don't base my decision to enter somewhere based on whether or not I can sue them if the stair railing breaks.

+1.... Maybe it's me, but when I go to the range the last thing I'm worried about is slipping on the ice or falling down the stairs. Hell, that could all happen at home... and there is nobody to sue there but me.

Then again I'm also of the mindset that 75% of all civil suits are complete and utter trash anyways, and are one of the big reasons this country is going into the shitter. Billions of dollars are wasted on tort crap. Then there are adverse effects that trickle down. Signing waivers. Stupid rules. More stupid rules. Clubs closing down. Dues being raised. etc, etc, etc.... [angry]

The tort system shouldn't be like winning the lottery- yet it is that way, for a lot of people.

Years ago I ran into an ambulance chaser that suggested that I sue the ski binding manufacturer because I fell on the mountain and blew out my knee. I was like "Uhh, that's just a bit unethical- I'm the one that was skiing- and my actions caused the accident.... I'm not gonna blame anyone else for it. "

In the long run we don't have to worry about gun laws- we have to worry about getting "lawyered" and "insuranced" out of existence. [thinking]


-Mike
 
Last edited:
When I shot the Tactical Shotgun match there recently, all participants signed the waiver. I guess all those people were "not in their right mind?" I wish I had known! They all had guns!

The question here is how many people actually read the waiver? Personally, I try my best to read everything I sign. I know most people blindly sign things without reading all the terms.

However, like I said it prob would not stand the test in court if something did come up.

I, like most of you, choose to accept the consequences of my own decisions. That said, it's still stupid language to have in a contract. You risk having the entire agreement nullified if an issue were to go to court.
 
Last edited:
Lets say something did happen and it was clearly gross negligence on the clubs behalf. You'd' be hard pressed to find a judged, esp in mass, that would hold that agreement as legally binding.
It would be *really* difficult to find a judge in MA to issue a ruling on a waiver for a NH gun club :)

What is really needed in these waivers is a clause "If I bring, or threaten to bring, a legal action against the club and do not prevail I agree to pay for all legal fees and other expenses incurred by the club in defending against, or preparing to defend against, said suit or threat thereof." The prospect of being held responsible for such expenses might make some people think twice.

That said, it's still stupid language to have in a contract. You risk having the entire agreement nullified if an issue were to go to court.
What is your legal training on NH law and court precedents to conclusively state that such language is "stupid to have in the contract?".

Based on the reaction I got, one might have thought I had suggested that all guns be stored in government controlled facilities for safe keeping.
Everyone is in favor of tort reform until you start talking about taking away their right to sue, and then their position starts to waffle.
 
Last edited:
What is really needed in these waivers is a clause "If I bring, or threaten to bring, a legal action against the club and do not prevail I agree to pay for all legal fees and other expenses incurred by the club in defending against, or preparing to defend against, said suit or threat thereof."
"...and dye my hair orange, and write the word "Dick" on my forehead with a Sharpie."
 
If you are going to get a waiver you should be careful to avoid any sort of coercive situation. For example, if you register people for a big match, they buy airplane tickets and pay for a hotel, and are only made aware of the waiver requirement and shown the document upon entry to the facility, the courts might find that coercive as you have maneuvered the person into a situation where they are signing only because they have been maneuvered by a lack of full advance disclosure. Be sure you have a copy of the document available to give anyone who either signs the waiver, or expresses an interest in studying the terms in contemplation of possible signing. If you don't make a copy available to them, and they later sign it, they could allege that you did this to prevent them from obtaining review by their legal counsel.

In short, the enforceability of a waiver can depend not only on the words on the document, but the circumstances under which the signature was obtained. But then again maybe not :)

I took a shooting class from an attorney who was well aware of these issues. After presenting the waiver, he offered anyone not satisfied with the terms a full refund of the class fee so that no one could accuse him of obtaining consent in a coercive environment.

It's similar to the case where the court threw out a pre-nup because one party brought up the issue and demanded it be signed as a condition for marriage after all wedding plans were in place.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom