Instructor Liability in this litigious environment.

[webprofessor]

In the mean time webprofessor you will undoubtedly get some freebies, but if you ever truly need someone to represent you, please do not return to the lawyer you got free legal advice from, because they will want a retainer this time. That trick works once and then we decide that you're a time waster.

- I have someone on retainer now.
- Time wasters & getting freebies are a part of business. Same thing happens to me in web development.

[webprofessor]

I'm also sending a link to this thread to all the other lawyers on this site, so you can't get any freebies here. :)

oh noes *! please don't do that... anything but that!! lol..

[Incorrigible 1]

ROTF. Is it Fake, no **** man! People need to slow down on assuming this is an inquiry into legal specifics and not just a topic for discussion.

I thought this would spark a little thinking, opinion, and discussion because, well ****, it's interesting and it could happen at any dojo.

Seeing as how I asked, "What are your thoughts on the following situations? What do you think the outcome would be in each situation should someone try to sue an instructor?"

If someone with a legal background, such as Samuel Browning, chimed in, then hey I scored in the bonus round by peaking his interest.

[It is Fake]

It drives me nuts sometimes how people react. I like the legal topics, Sam and others have provided good advice, warnings, stories, etc etc etc.

[FickleFingerOfFate]

We shouldn't talk about legal issues on the public webz,

the I.T. guy said so.

[Incorrigible 1]

The reason why I asked is that normally a lawyer would have to assert that the original sensei had some sort of supervisory relationship and then was negligent in such duties.

So without wasting my time looking up the caselaw, I'm wondering if this is closer to some sort of product liability claim, especially to stretch out the statute of limitations. Lets suppose for the sake of argument the first sensi was negligent and he taught the technique 5 years ago and the limit for negligence in that state is 2 years. You need a theory to get around this problem and continuing supervision is the most likely theory.

In the mean time webprofessor you will undoubtedly get some freebies, but if you ever truly need someone to represent you, please do not return to the lawyer you got free legal advice from, because they will want a retainer this time. That trick works once and then we decide that you're a time waster.

So Sam, in theory if a plantiff/student can prove a supervisory relationship between the instructor (instructor A) at the place where the plantiff trains and instructor A's teacher (instructor B), then potentially instructor B can be held liable.

I'm not sure what the burden of proof would be in establishing that, but WOW! With the way so many Martial Arts organizations run their affiliating process and requirements, doesn't that open up these organizations to a whole lot of potential liability?

I mean say the Gracies' were/are(?) "certifying" instructors and have requirements for maintaining certification, so these instructors can specifically state they teach Gracie Jujitsu. Then doesn't this open the Gracies up to a potential supervising relationship and the liability that goes with it?

*Note - I'm not saying the Gracies do things this way. I honestly do not know and I was only using the name as a point of reference.*
(Just in case someone was getting ready to nit-pick on how the Gracies "really" do it...)

[Sam Browning]

"So Sam, in theory if a plantiff/student can prove a supervisory relationship between the instructor (instructor A) at the place where the plantiff trains and instructor A's teacher (instructor B), then potentially instructor B can be held liable.

I'm not sure what the burden of proof would be in establishing that, but WOW! With the way so many Martial Arts organizations run their affiliating process and requirements, doesn't that open up these organizations to a whole lot of potential liability?"

The burden of proof in a civil trial would be proof by a preponderance of the evidence, or anything over 50%. And yes an ongoing supervisory relationship could open you up for liability if this other instructor was your employee or agent. I supose that your counter argument would be that they were an independant contractor which still would not erase your liability for their actions, just make it harder to prove.

[Incorrigible 1]

I gotta say that I thought this type of situation was truly and roundly fucked.

I mean I do understand the liability if I were an instructor and a student opened up a branch dojo in my name or my school's name.

However, if one of my hypothetical students went off to start their own school and I could still be, to some degree, liable... providing a "supervisory" relationship could be proved. It somewhat depends on how "supervisory" is defined, but in a civil trial where a jury is deciding.... Christ, that's scary.

I mean what if this hypothetical student of mine came back to visit and train on a regular basis. It's not hard for me to imagine a lawyer arguing this establishes some sort of "supervisory" relationship because he is titularly still a student of mine... or is that completely off base?

[Sam Browning]

You could argue that since he was not sending you money, and promoting people without your permission, that you were not truly supervising him in what we would consider a business sense.

[Incorrigible 1]

I think I'm just in awe of the mere existing possibility of this type of suit and that it might have a chance to succeed, even in the event of the complete business separation scenario.

Of course, I realize people start seemingly ridiculous suits and suits that press the bounds of belief every day, but this one has just left me in awe.... and it isn't even that much of a stretch when compared to the "McDonald's coffee burns" lawsuit a few years ago.