Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Edward R S Canby, SASS#59971

Neighbors Sue Founders Ranch

Recommended Posts

This is the kind of BS that ties up the court systom .

If the club was there before they bought or built the home .

The case should be not even be seen by the court systom .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Everyone!

 

I cant say much, that's true. But, first and foremost, my intention is not, nor was it ever, to keep SASS members in the dark. Its simply hard to say one thing without saying 100....but, I will try to summarize for you all!

 

There isn't much to report at this juncture, really. We have to just wait and see.

 

The plaintiffs had filed an application for a temporary injunction, and that hearing was to be held in early May. Turns out, the plaintiffs attorney made a mistake and never actually filed the summons, and we were never served a summons for this hearing on the temporary injunction.

 

Both parties agreed to vacate the hearing, and the plaintiffs have withdrawn their application for a temporary injunction so that we can move forward based on the merits of the lawsuit itself- so, we wait to see if they'll move forward with that...

 

Let me clarify a little for you- the plaintiffs (12) have a 3 part lawsuit against SASS/Founders Ranch; specifically, the Shotgun Sports Club. (If anyone is unaware, the 40 acres in the Northwest corner of Founders Ranch was fenced off in 2011 and we opened a shotgun sports club - FRSSC; to include 5-stand and a 12-stand sporting clays course). The plaintiffs suit alleges that "the operation of the Founders Ranch Shotgun Sports club by SASS is willful and malicious, and is a non-trespassory invasion of their property and destroys their ability to enjoy their property"- constituting the private nuisance portion of the suit. Additionally, they allege that "the operation of the Shotgun sports club constitutes a non-trespassory invasion of the Plaintiff's community and neighborhood and adversely affects the public health and welfare of a considerable number of people"- making up the public nuisance portion of the lawsuit. The 3rd part of the suit is for injunctive relief- essentially, wanting to cease operation of the Shotgun sports club.

 

SASS activities on Founders Ranch, like END of TRAIL, Buffalo Stampede, Outlaw Trail, Monthly matches, etc. are not in jeopardy by this lawsuit. The plaintiffs are seeking to close down the Shotgun sports club. Specifically: "prohibiting (SASS) from allowing, encouraging, and engaging in the firing of modern firearms at the Founders Ranch". That's right- you read that correctly. Didn't you know that shotguns are "modern firearms"?? The plaintiffs in this case say they are...

 

I assure you, if I could go into more detail here, I would- but, please- if anyone has any questions, or if you'd like more information, I would be happy to have a conversation with you regarding any additional specifics you may like to know. Just give me a call.

 

Misty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Misty for the clarification.

 

Painted Filly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you very much for the update!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it all started when the gal became a million-air, spilling hot coffee in her lap

sue-sue-sue and be happy-happy-happy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it all started when the gal became a million-air, spilling hot coffee in her lap

sue-sue-sue and be happy-happy-happy

 

That judgment was overturned on appeal the last I heard. In the end (no pun intended) she settled for a lesser amount, and we, the coffee drinkers of America, have a new warning to read on the side of our Mickey D's cup while on the way to work. Yeah, it's what the world America has become.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

it all started when the gal became a million-air, spilling hot coffee in her lap

 

 

That judgment was overturned on appeal the last I heard. In the end (no pun intended) she settled for a lesser amount, and we, the coffee drinkers of America, have a new warning to read on the side of our Mickey D's cup while on the way to work. Yeah, it's what the world America has become.

 

Well, I'd say you folks don't know the details of this case. A few of us in Albuquerque do. I am a close friend of one of the lawyers in the case. There was plenty of blame on the company's side and very little fault or deviousness on the customer's. When a company refuses to follow the safety procedures that were set up by the restaurant industry, and then a customer gets burned because of it, yes, there was a problem.

 

The original award seems kind of over-the-top, because most of it was punitive, not compensatory. The jury awarded most of that as a penalty due to continued violations of industry safety standards by the company. The actual award to the customer for medical care, pain and suffering was a smaller part of the original award, and was most of what the final settlement contained. Judgement was not overturned. The punitive damages (penalty to the company) were reduced to about half a million by a judge (a jury awarded the original punitive and other damages).

 

Yes, companies do make mistakes, cut corners or believe they know the only right way to do something, and injure their customers. This was not a made-up lawsuit from somebody looking to get rich. It all came about because serious burns occurred to the lap and crotch of an elderly, 79 year old, lady, which would not have happened if the company had followed the industry rules instead of going well outside them. How about a reasonable amount of sensitivity?

 

If you want to read something more close to the actual facts, see:

 

http://www.caoc.org/index.cfm?pg=facts

 

or perhaps:

 

http://centerjd.org/content/faq-about-mcdonald%E2%80%99s-coffee-case-and-use-fabricated-anecdotes

 

 

And, besides, a product safety lawsuit has nothing to do with Founders Ranch's zoning. (Hint - not even the same county).

 

New Mexico is a more liberal leaning state than say, Texas or Arizona. But we are nothing like many of the deep blue states back east. So, don't paint us with that brush, please.

 

Good luck, GJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, companies do make mistakes, cut corners or believe they know the only right way to do something, and injure their customers. This was not a made-up lawsuit from somebody looking to get rich. It all came about because serious burns occurred to the lap and crotch of an elderly, 79 year old, lady, which would not have happened if the company had followed the industry rules instead of going well outside them. How about a reasonable amount of sensitivity?

 

If you want to read something more close to the actual facts, see:

 

http://www.caoc.org/index.cfm?pg=facts

 

or perhaps:

 

http://centerjd.org/content/faq-about-mcdonald%E2%80%99s-coffee-case-and-use-fabricated-anecdotes

 

 

And, besides, a product safety lawsuit has nothing to do with Founders Ranch's zoning. (Hint - not even the same county).

 

New Mexico is a more liberal leaning state than say, Texas or Arizona. But we are nothing like many of the deep blue states back east. So, don't paint us with that brush, please.

 

Good luck, GJ

 

+1 Not to run any farther with this hyjack but if any of you had seen the photos of naaaasty burns on that ladys legs you would have sued as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you will excuse us, the low-information crowd, for jumping to conclusions. After reading some of the information I more clearly understand the cause of action so plenty of blame can be laid at the feet of the restaurant involved. BUT, if you hear hoof beats one can reasonably assume it's horses, not zebras. I owned my own company for almost 30 years and I can tell you that the great majority of businesses are just moving targets for the "you don't pay unless we recover" lawyers out there. Not painting anybody here. Made an uninformed comment now retracted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many uninformed people have made judgements on that case, and ridicule it. In 1985 a girlfriend and I were sitting in a McDonalds when a guy walking by with a cup of coffee tripped and spilled some on her arm. Caused a considerable scalding, requiring an ER visit. Their insurance took care of it, but it left a mark. It sometimes take the shock of a large judgement to make a change in business practice, sometimes it's the only way barring new laws that probably would, to the uninformed, seem senseless and interfeering with the right of a company to make a profit, right?

 

Thyanks Misty for the information/update on the going ons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you will excuse us, the low-information crowd, for jumping to conclusions. After reading some of the information I more clearly understand the cause of action so plenty of blame can be laid at the feet of the restaurant involved. BUT, if you hear hoof beats one can reasonably assume it's horses, not zebras. I owned my own company for almost 30 years and I can tell you that the great majority of businesses are just moving targets for the "you don't pay unless we recover" lawyers out there. Not painting anybody here. Made an uninformed comment now retracted.

Ya just hit the ol' horse on the rear.... it's not that final award that any company owner fears. It's the litigation expense. Heck, we, all of us business owners are, like Founder's Ranch and SASS a STILL target for almost anyone and any group with an axe to grind, need to fill or injury real or imagined.

 

Not to get off the OP: This will continue to be a problem for all shooting ranges in the USA because they can't afford the cost of litigation. Once the battle is engaged then the legal bills begin to eat the operating budget and therefore the company itself. It's virtually impossible to shut it off in a timely manner with a positive result. Property casualty insurance at least mitigates it in personal injury cases if you don't include the internal costs, sleepless nights, etc.

 

But, in a suit like this for which a club or company really can't insure; the costs mount so quickly at $2-300/hour that a lawsuit will crush a club's resolve rather quickly. So they close. Haven't we all witnessed club after club, range after range having to make that decision all over the USA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't had a cup o Jo in MickeyD's in probably 50 years. I like to drink my coffee & I don't have time to sit in a restaurant waiting half an hour for my coffee to cool enough to drink it w/o scalding my mouth, tongue & throat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, coffee can definitely be hot...

 

I knew the facts as I had heard many debates by lawyers and they pretty much agreed that the injury "should not have happened." Thus the lawsuit.

 

Now for a reality check...

 

For centuries, the standard method of making coffee was to use water at boiling temperature. As such, by today's standards, hot coffee should be banned because it is by its very nature dangerous.

 

McDonald’s had researched making coffee and found that the optimum temperature was 180 - 190 degrees Fahrenheit (not necessarily at boiling temperature). And it is quite good coffee.

 

So now people want hot coffee and want it to taste like it should - but they do not like the laws of chemistry and physics, so they want it hot, but not hot. And good, but not too hot.

 

Give me a break!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Not to get off the OP: This will continue to be a problem for all shooting ranges in the USA because they can't afford the cost of litigation. Once the battle is engaged then the legal bills begin to eat the operating budget and therefore the company itself. It's virtually impossible to shut it off in a timely manner with a positive result. Property casualty insurance at least mitigates it in personal injury cases if you don't include the internal costs, sleepless nights, etc.

 

 

But, in a suit like this for which a club or company really can't insure; the costs mount so quickly at $2-300/hour that a lawsuit will crush a club's resolve rather quickly. So they close. Haven't we all witnessed club after club, range after range having to make that decision all over the USA?"

 

 

No, I haven't seen or heard of any ranges here in Texas closing because of neighbors filing suits. But Texas is a pretty big state and our local media is pretty poor about covering state news. However we also have a range protection law here.. If the range was established before the home owner moved in the home owner has no standing in court to have the range closed. If you live in a state that does not have a range protection law get your state fish & game dept. or parks & wildlife dept. whatever agency your game wardens work for & circulate petitions at every range & sporting goods store, & any shooting club to have your legislature pass range protection laws. Most hunters live in a city and don't have a place to sight in their hunting rifles except a local range. If they lose that range it is often difficult to find another place to shoot. Many will quit hunting & game will overpopulate the state & starve to death. Cougars, coyotes, & bear are already invading towns in order to find food & some of that food is peoples pets. So it's only logical to get Game Wardens & local animal control involved. Perhaps SASS should be the leader to get such a law passed in N.M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about a reasonable amount of sensitivity?

 

 

And, besides, a product safety lawsuit has nothing to do with Founders Ranch's zoning. (Hint - not even the same county).

 

New Mexico is a more liberal leaning state than say, Texas or Arizona. But we are nothing like many of the deep blue states back east. So, don't paint us with that brush, please.

 

Good luck, GJ

It may appear that I was painting with a broad brush, and broad is what I ment

the average folks just herd about the million bucks, not her age, not industry standards, then they cheered thinking a citizen had finially stuck a sword into the mighty flying dragon.

All that happened, was a truning point for sue happy folks, hoping to hit the lottery?????

 

that is my story, and I aint gunna change it

when I saw the location of the shotgun range, when it was first started

I noticed that is was

close to the road,

high location on the ranch

the voices in my head said ut-00000, look out now

 

 

oh well,,,, I hope things work out well for SASS, and that they do not spend a million bucks in legal fees

mileage will always variy.....

 

post script

industry standards R now to the point of "do not change fan belt with the engine running"

goes along with the hot coffe syndrome

you can not protect us from under educated folks

this is just a belt change, not a fan belt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, in a suit like this for which a club or company really can't insure; the costs mount so quickly at $2-300/hour that a lawsuit will crush a club's resolve rather quickly.

 

In Florida, a good lawyer is about $280-300. In Alabama a good attorney is $335-380.00. In Washington D.C. they are $480-550.00 an hour. BUT, there is always at least two attorneys working on "your" case and expenses will also include legal assistants, postage, lunch and conference time with opposing attorneys, travel, depositions, responding to emails and phone calls etc., all billed in 15 minute blocks of time. Currently I have a "simple" case that I am contesting. With any luck it might only cost me $40,000.00 to defend it and I have no option but to defend it no matter how baseless it may seem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why our system ought to be changed to loser pays the winner's cost of litigation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"SASS activities on Founders Ranch, like END of TRAIL, Buffalo Stampede, Outlaw Trail, Monthly matches, etc. are not in jeopardy by this lawsuit. The plaintiffs are seeking to close down the Shotgun sports club. Specifically: "prohibiting (SASS) from allowing, encouraging, and engaging in the firing of modern firearms at the Founders Ranch". That's right- you read that correctly. Didn't you know that shotguns are "modern firearms"?? The plaintiffs in this case say they are..."

 

 

Unless I have compeltely misunderstood the legal definitions, an "antique firearms" is one made on or before December 31, 1898 or a muzzle loading firearm that uses black powder only, regardless of when it was made.

 

A "modern firearm" is anything made on or after January 1st 1899 that shoots cartridge ammunition.

 

Seems to me that would be 90% plus of the guns used in our sport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Centennial Airport is Southeast of Denver. It is a controlled airport, and has runways long enough to handle business aircraft, and even could handle scheduled regional aircraft. The airport, originally called Arapahoe County Airport, it was there when there was nothing in the area. But developers came in in the 1970's and built some fairly high-end single-family houses not far from the airport. The airport authority attempted to get clearance for scheduled airliners, which would take some regional traffic from Denver International. The homeowners complained that there would be too much noise! Guess who won? :angry: So, anyone wishing to take a regional flight, who lives in the south suburban areas of Denver, has to make the 45 minuites-to-an-hour trip to DIA.

 

Hopefully, SASS will win, but I'm not optimistic. And, even if the decision on May 9th goes in favor of SASS, I'd bet the thing will get appealed and appealed. Depending on how much money the complainents have, they can possibly wear SASS down! It isn't fair, and it isn't right, but "I seen it done!" :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to put gas a an already smoldering fire- my home club in MA 1989 area- has been shut down over the last 8 years-

Started out just like this article states- the home owners had plenty of-AMMO- shall we say- EPA trype of stuff over the lead.

Noise from shooting on the weekends, and on Wednesday nights- on and on.

 

Any way- the club finally lost- and this is NOT the only club facing problems- I had been a member at the FOP range in St.

Augustine FL for 6 years- Fraternal Order of Police- and even they are under fire- from all the new homes in the area.

 

This is not a good thing for clubs to be fighting in the legal system!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Everyone!

 

I cant say much, that's true. But, first and foremost, my intention is not, nor was it ever, to keep SASS members in the dark. Its simply hard to say one thing without saying 100....but, I will try to summarize for you all!

 

There isn't much to report at this juncture, really. We have to just wait and see.

 

The plaintiffs had filed an application for a temporary injunction, and that hearing was to be held in early May. Turns out, the plaintiffs attorney made a mistake and never actually filed the summons, and we were never served a summons for this hearing on the temporary injunction.

 

Both parties agreed to vacate the hearing, and the plaintiffs have withdrawn their application for a temporary injunction so that we can move forward based on the merits of the lawsuit itself- so, we wait to see if they'll move forward with that...

 

Let me clarify a little for you- the plaintiffs (12) have a 3 part lawsuit against SASS/Founders Ranch; specifically, the Shotgun Sports Club. (If anyone is unaware, the 40 acres in the Northwest corner of Founders Ranch was fenced off in 2011 and we opened a shotgun sports club - FRSSC; to include 5-stand and a 12-stand sporting clays course). The plaintiffs suit alleges that "the operation of the Founders Ranch Shotgun Sports club by SASS is willful and malicious, and is a non-trespassory invasion of their property and destroys their ability to enjoy their property"- constituting the private nuisance portion of the suit. Additionally, they allege that "the operation of the Shotgun sports club constitutes a non-trespassory invasion of the Plaintiff's community and neighborhood and adversely affects the public health and welfare of a considerable number of people"- making up the public nuisance portion of the lawsuit. The 3rd part of the suit is for injunctive relief- essentially, wanting to cease operation of the Shotgun sports club.

 

SASS activities on Founders Ranch, like END of TRAIL, Buffalo Stampede, Outlaw Trail, Monthly matches, etc. are not in jeopardy by this lawsuit. The plaintiffs are seeking to close down the Shotgun sports club. Specifically: "prohibiting (SASS) from allowing, encouraging, and engaging in the firing of modern firearms at the Founders Ranch". That's right- you read that correctly. Didn't you know that shotguns are "modern firearms"?? The plaintiffs in this case say they are...

 

I assure you, if I could go into more detail here, I would- but, please- if anyone has any questions, or if you'd like more information, I would be happy to have a conversation with you regarding any additional specifics you may like to know. Just give me a call.

 

Misty

So if I got this right the worst that can happen is the closing of JUST the shotgun club?? While I think it's stupid as H#$%, as long as the CAS matches go on without lawsuits it's not that bad. Can't SASS say the shotgun club is "Cowboy trap shooting" and just allow "cowboy shotguns"?

 

How ridiculous!!! :wacko:

 

Rye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In SC if you have a club that has been in operation you are grandfathered in. If the property around the ranges sells cheap (as it usually does) and gets developed then you have no leg to stand on when it comes to noise issues.

 

PS I hate the re-enactor statement.......I "thought" it was a shooting sport were we dressed the part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why I only shoot suppressed.. then you can shoot anywhere!

SASS should issue silencers at every match at FR..No more problem ;)

 

But then the timers don't work. I shoot Speed steel with a 22 rifle and have a hard time recording all shots. They won't let us use suppressed for that reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why our system ought to be changed to loser pays the winner's cost of litigation.

Agree 100% Captain. I have also thought the lawyers should have to put some sort of bond down so if they lose the case, they pay. I would think then that they would only take those cases they think have real merit instead of just rolling the dice and seeing what they can come up with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Folks - let's think out of the box respective to the surrounding residents lawsuit against the Founders Ranch.

 

http://www.koat.com/news/residents-file-lawsuit-against-single-action-shooting-society/19871222

Ende said her and several other residents in the area simply cannot handle the noise. She said with some events, it sounds like there is nearly 80 people shooting shotguns and it's disturbing their quiet, tranquil neighborhood.

"Gunfire is never something you get used to," she said. "It's erratic, it's scary, and you never get used to it!"

Ok, the lawsuit is all about noise!

 

So ...

Sound Barriers : The Use of Trees & Shrubs to Reduce Noise

http://www.hellistreeconsultants.co.uk/kbi1000033_sound_barriers_:_the_use_of_trees_and_shrubs_to_reduce_noise.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Folks - let's think out of the box respective to the surrounding residents lawsuit against the Founders Ranch.

 

Ok, the lawsuit is all about noise!

 

So ...

Sound Barriers : The Use of Trees & Shrubs to Reduce Noise

http://www.hellistreeconsultants.co.uk/kbi1000033_sound_barriers_:_the_use_of_trees_and_shrubs_to_reduce_noise.html

John Boy ever been to FR it is covered in trees and brush especially at the shotgun range part.

 

KK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It Ain't about the noise. It's about them EVIL GUNS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It Ain't about the noise. It's about them EVIL GUNS.

yes, however

the shotgun part is higher up, allowing sound to travel

the main range is deeper, allowing for less noise transfere

 

it is a (1) news-(2)cent$ suit, againt our rights as USA legal citizens fer sure

 

1: anti gun news outlets

2: make em spend money for de-fence

 

dont matter if the suit has merrit er not

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.