Not necessarily. I recall logs from people who recently did an "extreme" cache on a decrepit railway bridge. The walk to the cache over the rotted planks is probably more dangerous than the climb to the cache ... especially because potentially, many of the rotted planks could have been covered by snow.
You didn't mention anything about "dangerous" (or, for that mater, 'benign,') caches placed on private or public property without the express permission of the property owner or controlling agency.
Most of the "dangerous" or "extreme" caches I have encountered have fallen into that category. In addition to the example cited at the beginning of this post, I have visited: Caches placed in highly unstable boulder fields, caches placed in areas of structures not intended for public access, caches placed in abandoned buildings, caches placed in mines, caches that required rock climbing in parks where rock climbing is expressly forbidden by the park rules, caches placed hundreds of yards off-trail in parks that have rules requiring users to remain on the trails, caches placed within fenced-in areas or other areas clearly not intended for "public access."
In such cases, the property owner/controlling agency has in no way agreed to assume full or partial liability for the activity, (that was reviewed and approved by Groundspeak, Inc./geocaching.com without landowner/controlling agency knowledge or consent) yet would indeed be among the primary targets should someone become injured. And despite any disclaimers to the contrary, Groundspeak, Inc., its agents and the cache owner would be among those targeted by litigation.