TexasCHLforum.com

When I took my class and did the proficiency test, our instructor told us not to keep our targets nor take photos and post them to Facebook, etc. He said the reason is that if you are ever involved in a shooting, how well you scored could be used against you in a lawsuit. This came up in a discussion on another board and now I'm curious if he was right or not. Some on the other board thought it was bull.

tomservo92 wrote:When I took my class and did the proficiency test, our instructor told us not to keep our targets nor take photos and post them to Facebook, etc. He said the reason is that if you are ever involved in a shooting, how well you scored could be used against you in a lawsuit. This came up in a discussion on another board and now I'm curious if he was right or not. Some on the other board thought it was bull.

There are varied thoughts on this, but it is possible that it could be used by a prosecutor or defense attorney to try and show you were a great shot, or if you shot a bystander for some reason, and you didn't do too well on your CHL test, that you were NOT a good shot and were reckless and maybe shouldn't have fired because you can't hit a target.

The thing to remember is an attorney will use any and all avenues to try and prove or disprove what they need to in a case. The less you provide them that they could spin and use against you the better.

Keith B wrote:

tomservo92 wrote:When I took my class and did the proficiency test, our instructor told us not to keep our targets nor take photos and post them to Facebook, etc. He said the reason is that if you are ever involved in a shooting, how well you scored could be used against you in a lawsuit. This came up in a discussion on another board and now I'm curious if he was right or not. Some on the other board thought it was bull.

There are varied thoughts on this, but it is possible that it could be used by a prosecutor or defense attorney to try and show you were a great shot, or if you shot a bystander for some reason, and you didn't do too well on your CHL test, that you were NOT a good shot and were reckless and maybe shouldn't have fired because you can't hit a target.

The thing to remember is an attorney will use any and all avenues to try and prove or disprove what they need to in a case. The less you provide them that they could spin and use against you the better.

Thank you!

Another question (which you may not want to answer and I'll understand): Is it common for CHL instructors to get sued when their students are involved in a shooting?

The law was changed so that instructors report the range & class performance to DPS as pass/fail instead of a score for exactly that reason. Simply seems prudent to continue that policy in my personal affairs.

As far as instructor liability, they have immunity under normal circumstances.

tomservo92 wrote:
Thank you!

Another question (which you may not want to answer and I'll understand): Is it common for CHL instructors to get sued when their students are involved in a shooting?

It is possible that an instructor would be subpoenaed to testify in a case where one of their students was the shooter. It is also possible than that the instructor could be named in a lawsuit as well. However, Texas law states that someone who has been found justified in using force or deadly force against another cannot be found liable for damages. The others can sue, but they will not be able to collect, so no lawyer in their right mind is gonna take a case they know they have no chance of winning.

As far as is it common, self defense shootings by a CHL are not that common, and it is far more rare for a CHL to be sued, so can't answer that as there are no cases I am aware of.

Jumping Frog wrote:The law was changed so that instructors report the range & class performance to DPS as pass/fail instead of a score for exactly that reason. Simply seems prudent to continue that policy in my personal affairs.

As far as instructor liability, they have immunity under normal circumstances.

My instructor mentioned he'd been sued several times. So what would not be considered "normal circumstances"?

tomservo92 wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:The law was changed so that instructors report the range & class performance to DPS as pass/fail instead of a score for exactly that reason. Simply seems prudent to continue that policy in my personal affairs.

As far as instructor liability, they have immunity under normal circumstances.

My instructor mentioned he'd been sued several times. So what would not be considered "normal circumstances"?

I know several other instructors, and none of us have been subpoenaed, much less sued. Did your instructor mention what he'd been sued over?

KC5AV wrote:

tomservo92 wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:The law was changed so that instructors report the range & class performance to DPS as pass/fail instead of a score for exactly that reason. Simply seems prudent to continue that policy in my personal affairs.

As far as instructor liability, they have immunity under normal circumstances.

My instructor mentioned he'd been sued several times. So what would not be considered "normal circumstances"?

I know several other instructors, and none of us have been subpoenaed, much less sued. Did your instructor mention what he'd been sued over?

No, unfortunately he didn't.

tomservo92 wrote:My instructor mentioned he'd been sued several times. So what would not be considered "normal circumstances"?

If the instructor displayed gross negligence, didn't cover the required material, class length did not meet the required number of hours, fraudulent range testing, stuff like that. Then they could lose their immunity.

Jumping Frog wrote:

tomservo92 wrote:My instructor mentioned he'd been sued several times. So what would not be considered "normal circumstances"?

If the instructor displayed gross negligence, didn't cover the required material, class length did not meet the required number of hours, fraudulent range testing, stuff like that. Then they could lose their immunity.

No, if DPS proves the above alligations the instructor can lose his/her certification.

MoJo wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:

tomservo92 wrote:My instructor mentioned he'd been sued several times. So what would not be considered "normal circumstances"?

If the instructor displayed gross negligence, didn't cover the required material, class length did not meet the required number of hours, fraudulent range testing, stuff like that. Then they could lose their immunity.

No, if DPS proves the above allegations the instructor can lose his/her certification.

Well, yeah, that too. But the question was specifically asked about being sued -- civil liability.

Those actions can also have potential criminal consequences, obviously.

I just recalled that he also teaches NRA classes. I assume there is a possibility of civil lawsuit with that.

At any rate, the class is done and I have my CHL. When I renew I can go somewhere else if there are questions around the instructor. He came highly recommended and seemed very knowledgeable.

tomservo92 wrote:I just recalled that he also teaches NRA classes. I assume there is a possibility of civil lawsuit with that.

At any rate, the class is done and I have my CHL. When I renew I can go somewhere else if there are questions around the instructor. He came highly recommended and seemed very knowledgeable.

People in today's society are very litigious and will sue at the drop of a hat. Many times these suits are extremely frivolous and shouldn't even be going to court. It may not have been anything really.

Our instructor at instructor training school told us to advise our students against displaying the targets for that reason. That being said, there has not been a case where it was used, but the state has attorneys sitting around "just supposing"....