Jump to content

Who owns the cache page?


Recommended Posts

wavector makes an interesting claim in the other thread that if Groundspeak is going to restrict whether a cache owner can delete or not delete certain found logs then how can they claim that it is the cache owners resposibility for maintaining their cache page. He further theorizes that if the cache owner doesn't own the cache page then he doesn't own the cache and speculates that this means that Groundspeak accepts full liability for any damages associated with the cache itself. Here's a link4437256[/snapback] to his last post.

 

I'm taking the liberty to split out this discussion because I think it is interesting, but it doesn't have anything to do with whether a cache owner should delete logs of cachers who enter parks outside of posted hours to get first to finds. In fact, wavector and I seem to agree on that point.

 

The discussion of what Groundspeak can tell the cache owner to do on their cache's page may have been more appropriate in the original thread on Additional Logging Requirements. Like this post which seems to be a preview of threads to come :laughing: .

 

In fact, even before the ALR guideline change, Groundspeak gave directions to cache owners about which logs to delete or not delete, sometimes in the guidelines and sometimes personally if a cache owner was deleting legitimate logs for arbitrary reasons. I believe Groundspeak gives all responsibility to cache owners to maintain their cache page according to the guidelines and the Geocaching.com Terms of Use. Should a cache owner not fulfill their responsibility, a Groundspeak lackey or volunteer may get involved and maintain the page instead. And no doubt they will note that this cacher did not maintain the page per the guidelines.

 

wavector makes a radical claim that by intervening, Groundspeak has taken ownership or the cache and goes beyond that to say that by doing so Grounspeak implicitly accepts liability should someone be injured at the cache. I'd really like to have that logic explained. Groundspeak clearly has a right to control what is posted on the Geoaching.com website and how the features of the website are used by both cache owners and finders. There is nothing in the actions of Grounspeak than can be construed as anything beyond exercising this right. I don't even see a contradiction between Groundspeak's actions and the guideline statement that a cache owner assumes all responsibility for a listing. But if would make wavector happy, perhaps Groundspeak's top-notch legal team could find a phrasing the makes it clearer what is expected of a cache owner and what rights a cache owner does or does not have.

Link to comment

 

wavector makes a radical claim that by intervening, Groundspeak has taken ownership or the cache and goes beyond that to say that by doing so Grounspeak implicitly accepts liability should someone be injured at the cache.

 

That's quite a leap.

 

Groundspeak owns the web page, there's no doubt about that. To claim that because they own the page they also own the cache strikes me as nonsense.

 

There's nothing, for example, to stop someone from listing a cache on GC.com and also on a competing website. Or a letterboxing site, for that matter. I can put religious propaganda in a cache, and in spite of what you read in another thread, Groundspeak can't do anything about it. I can archive my cache whenever I want.

 

I think it's quite clear that the CO owns the cache, Grounspeak owns the listing.

Link to comment

I am not a lawyer and I am a noob here. But if I get injured while looking for a geocache, wouldn't the liability be with the property owner?

 

caches should not be on private land so there is no property owner to be liable

now where permission has been granted its a different story, but if its a park or conservation area the authorities that own the property will usually pass the liability onto the user

 

for the rest of the situations this answers your question

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/disclaimer.aspx

Edited by t4e
Link to comment

I am not a lawyer and I am a noob here. But if I get injured while looking for a geocache, wouldn't the liability be with the property owner?

 

I would think so unless the property owner did not give permission or was unaware of the cache being there.

Link to comment

caches should not be on private land so there is no property owner to be liable

 

 

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat??

 

Plenty of caches are on private land. This is simply not true.

 

you missed my EDIT

 

and perhaps "private land" has different definition in USA than it does in Canada...if it says "no trespassing" heck you stay out of there

Link to comment

I'm certain that GS has consulted more than one lawyer about these things. But I doubt they will share that info with us.

 

Here it is from the guidelines;

 

The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings.

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page.

 

Is that they way it works? No it isn't.

 

It means the guidelines ain't worth spit, that is what it means, they are just lip service.

It wouldn't even take a good lawyer to demonstrate that Groundspeak owns the listing, they maintain the listing and they control the listing on a day to day basis. I could remove the physical cache and never log in again and the cache listing would go on and on and on and on, (how many unowned caches in your area) because the listing belongs to Groundspeak, not to the cache placer, and the listing provides Groundspeak with profit. Groundspeak is the one inviting people to seek caches by providing the listing.

 

Groundspeak has a clear interst, they are the entity that profits through the day to day control of the listing, they also profit from deciding what content each listing will be allowed to have. In fact the cache placer is not responsible for any aspect of the cache listing.

 

I am not sure why you characterize that as radical leap, it seems pretty clear to me. Groundspeak controls the listing on a day to day basis, they control the content of the page , they control the logs, they excersise control over every aspect of the listing and this has nothing to do with meeting the listing requirements.

Link to comment

This reminds me of parking garages. The owner of a parking garage doesn't claim ownership of the cars parked there. But the right to park your car there is subject to certain restrictions (park in a marked space, don't park in reserved spaces that aren't reserved for you, etc.).

 

In the same way, Groundspeak doesn't claim ownership of the cache listings, but the right to list your cache on their site is subject to certain restrictions (follow the guidelines, etc.).

Link to comment

wavector makes a radical claim that by intervening, Groundspeak has taken ownership or the cache and goes beyond that to say that by doing so Grounspeak implicitly accepts liability should someone be injured at the cache.

 

They haven't intervened, they have demonstrated that the listing guidelines are meaningless, they have demonstrated that they own the listing, they are the responsible party.

I cannot assume all the responsibility of the listing as the guidelines indicate I must, it is impossible to meet that condition because Groundspeak's actions indicate that they actually consider themselves the only responsible party and they act accordingly.

Link to comment

I am not sure why you characterize that as radical leap, it seems pretty clear to me. Groundspeak controls the listing on a day to day basis, they control the content of the page , they control the logs, they excersise control over every aspect of the listing and this has nothing to do with meeting the listing requirements.

Come on now. You know very well they don't control the listing on a day to day basis. Instead they rely on cache owners to maintain the page, keep it up to date, and manage the logs that people make to the page - all in accordance with the guidelines and the terms of use. Certainly if a cache owner isn't doing this - or is doing something on the cache page contrary to the guidelines, someone can post a Needs Archive or otherwise inform Groundspeak or a reviewer there is a problem and in that case then, yes, they can make the corrections to cache page or undo something the cache owner did.

 

I don't understand how you can come up with the interpretation that "The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings" mean a cache owner can do whatever he or she wants to do on a page. There are guidelines elsewhere that explain just what the responsibility of a cache owner is regarding the cache listing. The phrase all responsibility does not mean absolute authority to do what ever you want. It also says nothing about limiting what actions Groundspeak can take if you don't meet your responsibility (or if you exercise the capabilities in a manner that exceeds the authority the guidelines give you). I just don't get it why some people will fixate on a phrase and give it a meaning beyond what it says. :laughing:

Link to comment

In the same way, Groundspeak doesn't claim ownership of the cache listings, but the right to list your cache on their site is subject to certain restrictions...

 

This is very simple, I will cut and paste the listing guideline then you tell me if the guideline reflects the actual state that prevails...

 

The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings.

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page.

 

Clearly that guideline isn't true.

 

If the cache placer is not the responsible party then who is, who controls the listing on a day to day basis? Who decides case by case, day by day what will be allowed on the cache page?

 

According to the guideline it is supposed to be the cache placer but it isn't, is it?

 

I still think it is a great thing that Groundspeak has done. It is nice to know that any lawyer can demonstrate clearly that Groundspeak does not allow cache placers to be responsible for the cache listing. The cache listing is the invitation, not the cache.

Link to comment

There are guidelines elsewhere that explain just what the responsibility of a cache owner is regarding the cache listing.

 

When the guideline has already stated explicitly that the cache owner assumes "all responsibility" there is no reservation, you don't need to clarify "all" by detailing what "all" is, it is everything. I didn't put "all responsibility" in the guidelines but I can certainly read it there.

It wouldn't be an issue if it was true, but it isn't.

It won't matter until a lawyer is suing someone and looking for a "responsible party".

 

I would be willing to bet buttons to navy beans that the responsible party will be Groundspeak and because they maintain listings for ever, even after people who placed the cache are dead, they will be the party that is deemed to be inviting others to seek geocaches, not the geocache placers.

 

But hey, no problems for me. I delete logs whenever I see they need to be deleted and have never been overruled by Groundspeak.

 

I still think it is a good thing that Groundspeak has done, it means there will probably not be any claims made by geocachers against their home insurance. :laughing:

Link to comment
I am not sure why you characterize that as radical leap, it seems pretty clear to me. Groundspeak controls the listing on a day to day basis, they control the content of the page , they control the logs, they excersise control over every aspect of the listing and this has nothing to do with meeting the listing requirements.

 

I can change the content of my cache page, I can archive it; I can list it with another listing service. But as long as I choose to use Groundspeak's listing service then I have to follow the terms and policies they set. So in that sense you do not have complete control over content and logging. It seems simple enough to me.

 

As to legal liability it's been a long time since I was in law school and I do my best to avoid civil practice. From what I recall, although states do it differently, there generally is some protection through recreational use statutes and assumption of the risk. But if I could show you were willfully and grossly negligent then I don't think Groundspeak's listing policies would offer much of a defense. And if Groundspeak was aware of the problem and disregarded it, I would go after them, too. Not to mention the property owner.

Link to comment

There are guidelines elsewhere that explain just what the responsibility of a cache owner is regarding the cache listing.

 

When the guideline has already stated explicitly that the cache owner assumes "all responsibility" there is no reservation, you don't need to clarify "all" by detailing what "all" is, it is everything. I didn't put "all responsibility" in the guidelines but I can certainly read it there.

It wouldn't be an issue if it was true, but it isn't.

It won't matter until a lawyer is suing someone and looking for a "responsible party".

 

I would be willing to bet buttons to navy beans that the responsible party will be Groundspeak and because they maintain listings for ever, even after people who placed the cache are dead, they will be the party that is deemed to be inviting others to seek geocaches, not the geocache placers.

 

But hey, no problems for me. I delete logs whenever I see they need to be deleted and have never been overruled by Groundspeak.

 

I still think it is a good thing that Groundspeak has done, it means there will probably not be any claims made by geocachers against their home insurance. :laughing:

 

So, where did you earn your law degree?

Link to comment

If the cache placer is not the responsible party then who is, who controls the listing on a day to day basis? Who decides case by case, day by day what will be allowed on the cache page?

 

According to the guideline it is supposed to be the cache placer but it isn't, is it?

 

Actually they allow you to create a page on their server. Just like if you host a webpage on any other server you are the responsible party to make sure it fits within the specified guidelines set forth by the hosting party. If you find a Christian webhosting company, and put Satanist material on their server and it violates their TOS they can ask you to remove the offending material. If you choose not to do that then they can remove it for you. They never actually take ownership of the page. They just exercise their right under their TOS to do it. You are the responsible party no matter what. Any lawyer will tell you the same thing. They host it for free. If you dont like the way the site is then find another site to host on.

Link to comment

There are guidelines elsewhere that explain just what the responsibility of a cache owner is regarding the cache listing.

 

When the guideline has already stated explicitly that the cache owner assumes "all responsibility" there is no reservation, you don't need to clarify "all" by detailing what "all" is, it is everything. I didn't put "all responsibility" in the guidelines but I can certainly read it there.

It wouldn't be an issue if it was true, but it isn't.

It won't matter until a lawyer is suing someone and looking for a "responsible party".

 

I would be willing to bet buttons to navy beans that the responsible party will be Groundspeak and because they maintain listings for ever, even after people who placed the cache are dead, they will be the party that is deemed to be inviting others to seek geocaches, not the geocache placers.

 

But hey, no problems for me. I delete logs whenever I see they need to be deleted and have never been overruled by Groundspeak.

 

I still think it is a good thing that Groundspeak has done, it means there will probably not be any claims made by geocachers against their home insurance. :laughing:

First of all responsibility does not mean the same the same thing as authority. So having all responsiblity for you listing doesn't mean you have all the authority over what is on the page or in the logs. Groundspeak can have guidelines and then make it your responsibility (duty or obligation) to see the guidelines are followed. If you don't meet your responsibility, Groundspeak can step in and do it for you. In addition they may note that you failed to carry out your responsibility or obligations under the cache listing guideline, and archive your cache for not following the maintenance guidelines.

 

Second responsibility does not mean the same thing as liability. Tort law may indicate that the person most responsible for causing injury or loss is the party that is liable to pay damages. In this case it's not who is responsible for maintaining the listing - unless it can be shown that the listing was a factor in causing the loss or injury. If you look at the guidelines you will see that among other things you are asked to do is make sure the listing is accurate. You are given tools to rate the difficulty of a cache and attributes that can be used to warn of dangers. Under the guidelines the reviewers and Groundspeak assume you have rated the cache properly and given any warnings you think are necessary. Groundspeak throws in the standard disclaimer. I suspect that if someone reports your cache page as being misleading about the dangers of the cache, you may get a note from Groundspeak reminding you of your responsibility. You are also told to delete bogus logs. Perhaps this is so you won't be liable for the cost of the gasoline when briansnat's friend drives 200 miles out of his way to search for your cache due to a bogus find.

 

My guess is that if someone were to be injured while searching for a cache, a jury may feel that the cacher who was injured is the one responsible and not hold the cache owner, the owner or agency that manages the property, or Groundspeak liable. If a judge or jury should find that the listing misrepresented the danger and contributed to the injury, Groundspeak's defense would be they could not know of the dangers inherent in the cache except those revealed by the cache owner or by other people who have searched for the cache. If someone posts "This cache is dangerous" and the cache owner deletes that log, I suppose that Groundspeak could be held liable for not restoring that log. But wouldn't a jury also hold the cache owner liable for deleting the log in first place. The cache owner would have a hard time arguing that he was not liable because he deleted the log knowing that Groundspeak can restore logs that cache owners delete.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

For me, there is a pretty clear line between the physical world, and the virtual world.

Groundspeak expects me to maintain the connection between my bit(s) {caches} in the physical world and their representation(s) in their virtual (online) world.

Certain protocols and requirements are in place to prevent certain obvious (and not so obvious) problems for all involved.

My responsibility only extends as far as my desire to maintain a presence in the virtual world provided by Groundspeak.

I can choose to give Groundspeak the finger, and list my caches on my own site (or someone else's) any time I disagree with their policies.

If I fail to live up to Groundspeak's expectations, they can ban me from accessing the site.

 

Seems fair enough to me...

Link to comment
This is very simple, I will cut and paste the listing guideline then you tell me if the guideline reflects the actual state that prevails...

 

The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings.

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page.

 

Clearly that guideline isn't true.

 

If the cache placer is not the responsible party then who is, who controls the listing on a day to day basis? Who decides case by case, day by day what will be allowed on the cache page?

 

According to the guideline it is supposed to be the cache placer but it isn't, is it?

 

I still think it is a great thing that Groundspeak has done. It is nice to know that any lawyer can demonstrate clearly that Groundspeak does not allow cache placers to be responsible for the cache listing. The cache listing is the invitation, not the cache.

 

This website is simply a listing service, the Yellow Pages of geocaching. They don't own a cache or listing any more than the Yellow Pages owns the business being advertised. They do have control over what caches they choose to list, the same way the Yellow Pages control the businesses they will list. The Yellow Pages have their requirements. Try to place an ad for for an obviously illegal endeavor. It will probably be rejected. Try to place an ad with profanity, and it will not see print. They have their guidelines and GC.com has theirs.

 

Suppose you place a Yellow Page ad and they find out later that you don't serve black people, or that your business is really a house of prostitution, they can pull your ad because it doesn't meet their listing criteria.

 

So no, GC.com does not own your cache or listing. You can take your listing elsewhere. They just decide whether or not they choose to present it.

Link to comment

For me, there is a pretty clear line between the physical world, and the virtual world.

Groundspeak expects me to maintain the connection between my bit(s) {caches} in the physical world and their representation(s) in their virtual (online) world.

Certain protocols and requirements are in place to prevent certain obvious (and not so obvious) problems for all involved.

My responsibility only extends as far as my desire to maintain a presence in the virtual world provided by Groundspeak.

I can choose to give Groundspeak the finger, and list my caches on my own site (or someone else's) any time I disagree with their policies.

If I fail to live up to Groundspeak's expectations, they can ban me from accessing the site.

 

Seems fair enough to me...

 

And that has nothing to do with the liability that Groundspeak can be held responsible.

 

I can create all sorts of disclaimers that say I am not responsible if someone does something but in the end the law and lawyers argue over what is legal and who is responsible.

 

I do believe (and I am no lawyer but my wife is and I have asked her) that all parties including Groundspeak and the cache placer would both be sued.

 

In all probability Groundspeak would be the one that ended up paying.

 

If I create a website that lists dangerous places and allow others to add to it... I am held responsible.

 

Groundspeak has made it clear that they are not here to promote safety or to protect others.

 

user beware but this may bite them in the arse someday.

 

Disclaimers mean little in a court of law.

Edited by brslk
Link to comment
This is very simple, I will cut and paste the listing guideline then you tell me if the guideline reflects the actual state that prevails...

 

The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings.

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page.

 

Clearly that guideline isn't true.

 

If the cache placer is not the responsible party then who is, who controls the listing on a day to day basis? Who decides case by case, day by day what will be allowed on the cache page?

 

According to the guideline it is supposed to be the cache placer but it isn't, is it?

 

I still think it is a great thing that Groundspeak has done. It is nice to know that any lawyer can demonstrate clearly that Groundspeak does not allow cache placers to be responsible for the cache listing. The cache listing is the invitation, not the cache.

 

This website is simply a listing service, the Yellow Pages of geocaching. They don't own a cache or listing any more than the Yellow Pages owns the business being advertised. They do have control over what caches they choose to list, the same way the Yellow Pages control the businesses they will list. The Yellow Pages have their requirements. Try to place an ad for for an obviously illegal endeavor. It will probably be rejected. Try to place an ad with profanity, and it will not see print. They have their guidelines and GC.com has theirs.

 

Suppose you place a Yellow Page ad and they find out later that you don't serve black people, or that your business is really a house of prostitution, they can pull your ad because it doesn't meet their listing criteria.

 

So no, GC.com does not own your cache or listing. You can take your listing elsewhere. They just decide whether or not they choose to present it.

 

Do the yellow pages retain control after things are published? no

 

Does the yellow pages have the power to remove an ad once it is posted? no

 

The yellow pages has the power and the immunity because is it a yearly publication that cannot be changed until the next year.

 

Apples to Peas

Link to comment
This is very simple, I will cut and paste the listing guideline then you tell me if the guideline reflects the actual state that prevails...

 

The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings.

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page.

 

Clearly that guideline isn't true.

 

If the cache placer is not the responsible party then who is, who controls the listing on a day to day basis? Who decides case by case, day by day what will be allowed on the cache page?

 

According to the guideline it is supposed to be the cache placer but it isn't, is it?

 

I still think it is a great thing that Groundspeak has done. It is nice to know that any lawyer can demonstrate clearly that Groundspeak does not allow cache placers to be responsible for the cache listing. The cache listing is the invitation, not the cache.

 

This website is simply a listing service, the Yellow Pages of geocaching. They don't own a cache or listing any more than the Yellow Pages owns the business being advertised. They do have control over what caches they choose to list, the same way the Yellow Pages control the businesses they will list. The Yellow Pages have their requirements. Try to place an ad for for an obviously illegal endeavor. It will probably be rejected. Try to place an ad with profanity, and it will not see print. They have their guidelines and GC.com has theirs.

 

Suppose you place a Yellow Page ad and they find out later that you don't serve black people, or that your business is really a house of prostitution, they can pull your ad because it doesn't meet their listing criteria.

 

So no, GC.com does not own your cache or listing. You can take your listing elsewhere. They just decide whether or not they choose to present it.

 

Do the yellow pages retain control after things are published? no

 

Does the yellow pages have the power to remove an ad once it is posted? no

 

The yellow pages has the power and the immunity because is it a yearly publication that cannot be changed until the next year.

 

Apples to Peas

 

When you make this kind of comparison though between a website, and the yellow pages I must agree that you compare two separate things. Take Websites that let people create trails for other people to hike outdoors. Those trails can be very dangerous, just as a true 5/5 GeoCache can be. The website hosting the trail information would not be held liable if someone was to get hurt following that trail. I could be wrong. If you would like I can contact an old Prof of mine, and ask him about it. He knows a lot of people who work with this kind of stuff.

Link to comment
This is very simple, I will cut and paste the listing guideline then you tell me if the guideline reflects the actual state that prevails...

 

The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings.

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page.

 

Clearly that guideline isn't true.

 

If the cache placer is not the responsible party then who is, who controls the listing on a day to day basis? Who decides case by case, day by day what will be allowed on the cache page?

 

According to the guideline it is supposed to be the cache placer but it isn't, is it?

 

I still think it is a great thing that Groundspeak has done. It is nice to know that any lawyer can demonstrate clearly that Groundspeak does not allow cache placers to be responsible for the cache listing. The cache listing is the invitation, not the cache.

 

This website is simply a listing service, the Yellow Pages of geocaching. They don't own a cache or listing any more than the Yellow Pages owns the business being advertised. They do have control over what caches they choose to list, the same way the Yellow Pages control the businesses they will list. The Yellow Pages have their requirements. Try to place an ad for for an obviously illegal endeavor. It will probably be rejected. Try to place an ad with profanity, and it will not see print. They have their guidelines and GC.com has theirs.

 

Suppose you place a Yellow Page ad and they find out later that you don't serve black people, or that your business is really a house of prostitution, they can pull your ad because it doesn't meet their listing criteria.

 

So no, GC.com does not own your cache or listing. You can take your listing elsewhere. They just decide whether or not they choose to present it.

 

Do the yellow pages retain control after things are published? no

 

Does the yellow pages have the power to remove an ad once it is posted? no

 

The yellow pages has the power and the immunity because is it a yearly publication that cannot be changed until the next year.

 

Apples to Peas

 

When you make this kind of comparison though between a website, and the yellow pages I must agree that you compare two separate things. Take Websites that let people create trails for other people to hike outdoors. Those trails can be very dangerous, just as a true 5/5 GeoCache can be. The website hosting the trail information would not be held liable if someone was to get hurt following that trail. I could be wrong. If you would like I can contact an old Prof of mine, and ask him about it. He knows a lot of people who work with this kind of stuff.

 

Please do. I would like to hear (read) what he would have to say about it. :laughing:

Link to comment
...if Groundspeak was aware of the problem and disregarded it, I would go after them, too. Not to mention the property owner.

So, if I attempted a radically dangerous cache, like one of the Vinnie & Sue Psycho Urban Cache series, well beyond my physical abilities, would you sue Groundspeak if I were killed or seriously injured in my hunt? Make them pay for my stupidity? Or is there some point where I should bear the consequences of my own idiotic acts? :laughing:

Link to comment
...if Groundspeak was aware of the problem and disregarded it, I would go after them, too. Not to mention the property owner.

So, if I attempted a radically dangerous cache, like one of the Vinnie & Sue Psycho Urban Cache series, well beyond my physical abilities, would you sue Groundspeak if I were killed or seriously injured in my hunt? Make them pay for my stupidity? Or is there some point where I should bear the consequences of my own idiotic acts? :laughing:

 

Apples to mangos?

 

Yes you and your lawyer would most probably sue Vinnie & Sue but mostly you would sue Groundspeak as they are the ones most likely to pay.

 

I am not saying this is right or fair but the legal system is never fair or right.

 

Look at it this way... If a woman can sue Mc Donalds for her coffee being too hot when she spilled it on her lap... you don't think Groundspeak could be held liable for the things they list?

 

A disclaimer is as good as the paper it is written on.

 

Perhaps even less as it becomes used paper...

Link to comment
Do the yellow pages retain control after things are published? no

 

Does the yellow pages have the power to remove an ad once it is posted? no

 

Well being printed you can't call all the issues back they can pull the ads from future issues if they do not conform, so yes they do retain a level of control.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

 

caches should not be on private land so there is no property owner to be liable

 

offtopic: Still they often are hidden on private property and also you have been involved in such placements. The situation in different countries is different.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment
I am not saying this is right or fair but the legal system is never fair or right.

Testify! I think civil trial lawyers represent what is most reprehensible about our legal system.

Blood sucking vampires intent on proving that Man should never be held accountable for His own stupidity.

My mom once suggested I become a lawyer. I told her I'd rather be a serial killer. They are far less slimy.

Link to comment
...if Groundspeak was aware of the problem and disregarded it, I would go after them, too. Not to mention the property owner.

So, if I attempted a radically dangerous cache, like one of the Vinnie & Sue Psycho Urban Cache series, well beyond my physical abilities, would you sue Groundspeak if I were killed or seriously injured in my hunt? Make them pay for my stupidity? Or is there some point where I should bear the consequences of my own idiotic acts? :D

 

Well, CR, you are talking the difference between personal responsibility and comon sense vs. legal picking of nits.

 

As many of you on here know, I was involved in a pretty significant caching accident a few years ago that I will never fully recover from. I owned up to the poor judgement on my part in even trying for the cache. I blame no one but myself for the situation I put myself in.

 

But that being said, I've had more than 1 legally-oriented individual make it clear that I could have sued the bejeebers out of Groundspeak (not exerting enough control over "their" game or players), the person that placed the cache (knowingly endangering others), the city on whose property the cache was placed (not enough protections to prevent dummies like me from doing what I did) as well as, possibly, State and Federal agencies, depending on where the funding for the design and building of that project came from (improper design and insufficient safety considerations). I most likely would have won in all cases to some degree. Not only for my medical expenses but punitive awards as well. It is very possible that myself and a well-schooled lawyer could have ended our game as we know it in a Texas courtroom, despite all the web-posted disclaimers and checked boxes. Apparently those things would have made an attorney's job a bit harder, but they certainly would not have prevented the real possibility of a case being made.

 

Personal responsibility is one thing. Legal liability is an entirely different animal, and disclaimers only add a thin layer of defense. They absolve no one of anything ad the right circumstance and the right attorney can deal with them handily.

 

To be clear, I want to reiterate. I hold NO ONE at fault for what happened to me and I sued no one (and will not) in regards to my accident. I made a bad decision and I have to live with the repercussions of that decision. I only wish more people reacted to life the same way.

Link to comment

I dont think that you could get too much in a lawsuit.

 

SHOULD A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION DETERMINE THAT THE LIMITATION ABOVE IS NOT LEGALLY VALID, Groundspeak, ITS OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AGENTS AND VOLUNTEER ADMINISTRATOR'S LIABILITY FOR ANY CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT (INCLUDING ANY TERMS AND CONDITIONS REFERENCED IN THIS AGREEMENT) INCLUDING FOR ANY DIRECT DAMAGES ARISING FROM YOUR RELIANCE ON SITE INFORMATION, WILL BE LIMITED TO U.S.$10.00 OR THE AMOUNT OF DIRECT DAMAGES INCURRED BY YOU IN RELIANCE ON THIS SITE OR ON SITE INFORMATION, WHICHEVER IS LESS. YOU AGREE THAT THIS IS YOUR SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY AND YOU HEREBY RELEASE Groundspeak, ITS OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AGENTS AND VOLUNTEER ADMINISTRATORS FROM ALL OBLIGATIONS, LIABILITY, CLAIMS OR DEMANDS IN EXCESS OF THE LIMITATION.

 

If any provision of this Agreement is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, the parties agree that the remaining provisions of the Agreement will remain in full force and effect, and the allocation of risk described herein will be given effect to the fullest extent possible.

 

And if you did get $10...

 

In any formal action or suit to enforce any right or remedy under this Agreement or to interpret any provision of this Agreement, Groundspeak will be entitled to recover its costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees.

 

:D

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/termsofuse.aspx

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

To be clear, I want to reiterate. I hold NO ONE at fault for what happened to me and I sued no one (and will not) in regards to my accident. I made a bad decision and I have to live with the repercussions of that decision. I only wish more people reacted to life the same way.

 

Well said SQ.

My cache Swim was the one that caused me to make a comment in the first place. It is underwater and you do need to be a competent swimmer. It is in manmade lake that has lifeguards. The lifeguards have to be there because the lake is manmade, there would be no lake if it wasn't manmade so the risk is manmade hence the law requiring people to swim only when the lifeguards are on duty is liability protection rule.

 

It is unfortunate that you had an accident and I do hope you recover as much as possible, I also hope your enjoyment of life and the activity of geocaching was not curtailed too drastically by your accident.

 

I am enjoying the comments, many different perspectives!

 

If I put an ad in the Yellow Pages it is my ad, if the Art Director at the Yellow Pages changes my ad to suit some fancy of his then I am not liable for any consequences caused by the changes he made and it is in fact their ad, I wouldn't even have to pay for it.

It wouldn't matter that I had agreed that I was fully responsible for the ad if they were the ones making the changes to suit themselves after they had already accepted the ad and deemed that it met all the requirements as stated.

 

I was involved in a situation that was labour related. A supervisor had added comments to my employment contract after it had been drawn up by the department eggheads, his comments were only on his copy and mine, none were on the copy in HR.

That misstep caused a lot of grief when it became clear what had happened. I received a significant judgement from the Labour Relations Board when it was deemed his additions had made me an employee rather than a contractor and as an employee I was entitled to vacation Pay and benefits and had been since I began working 3 years previously. It wasn't even mean spirirted, just the way it worked out with the beagles. All that was added was the hours he expected me to be there, he didn't like the fact that I came and went as I pleased. The department that drew up the contract did not have to make up the payment, it had to come from a special fund which bought it to the attention of the people at the director level, really bad for everyone, all because he changed a few things to suit his own fancy.

 

I am sure that this will end up in a court of law one day, a parent suing on behalf of a child, a non-geocaching spouse or some other circumstance will occur which will end up in a lawsuit. As a cache placer I understand that my caches are invitations and that I am responsible, I used to be anyway. Now geocaching.com retains all the rights to make day to day changes to the information available on my cache page and they do this to further their own ends. They retain the right to make any change they see as appropriate and the changes they make may have nothing to do with the wishes of the cache placer, the person deemed to accept "all responsibility of the listing" in the guideline. The guideline is clearly wrong and needs to be changed because as it is right now it is just a red arrow pointing to the "hit me here" button, that is my opinion.

Link to comment

SHOULD A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION DETERMINE THAT THE LIMITATION ABOVE IS NOT LEGALLY VALID

 

Yes, then the court of law that made the determination that the limited liability clause meant noting will note that the rest of the limitations drawn up by the party being sued are also null and void. The little letters on the back of the movie ticket really mean nothing because liability is determined in a court of law no matter what you say beforehand.

 

You cannot sue me.

You cannot get more than $10.00 if you do sue.

I cannot be held liable because it says so on this agreement I printed up.

 

You aren't serious are you?

 

Is there anyone who thinks it actually works that way in the USA.

This is the place where the guy breaking into your house can sue you and win when he falls because your skylight was an unsafe place for him to try and break in.

Link to comment

you people jump to some weird conclusoins. i dont see wavector being afraid of liability issues. i hear him saying either let him regulate his cache like he wants or take over and do it youself. stop medling in his business.

 

Either way the simple answer is for him to stop using Groundspeaks site to list his caches. It is obvious he doesn't want to accept the conditions GS puts on the service.

Link to comment
I blame no one but myself for the situation I put myself in.

I wish more members of society felt as you do. My mind boggles at the fact that, should I choose to do something incredibly stupid, and I receive an injury as a result of my choice, I can get some ambulance chasing leech to suck money from someone else.

 

Reading the dialogue in this thread has been mind boggling.

 

Man made lakes in Canada have to have lifeguards??? Because man made it, man has to be responsible for it?

I'm a poor swimmer. I kind of wade and dog paddle. If it is obvious that my feet will be off the bottom for an extended time, it's my personal responsibility for my own well being that tells me not to attempt it.

 

If I stand at a cliff edge and it's obvious that some thrill seeking cacher has placed a cache over that edge, it's my responsibility to decide if I have the ability to to log that cache, or go on to the next one.

 

People who wander through life blaming others for their misfortunes, well, because of our legal system, they'll be rich, while the rest of us are trying to scrap out an HONEST living.

Link to comment

Look at it this way... If a woman can sue Mc Donalds for her coffee being too hot when she spilled it on her lap... you don't think Groundspeak could be held liable for the things they list?

What you think you know about the McDonalds suit is probably wrong. That was just one of over 700 claims against McD for serving coffee hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns, with temperatures well in excess of industry standards. Instead of the normal 135 degrees, they cranked up the temperature to a freakin' 190 degrees, based on a consultant's recommendation.

Link to comment
Instead of the normal 135 degrees, they cranked up the temperature to a freakin' 190 degrees

135 degrees = hot

190 degrees = hot

 

If I were purchasing a liquid that I believed to be a blistering 135 degrees, (the so called standard), I wouldn't place it in a precarious spot in my vehicle, where it might fall in my lap, causing a severe burn. If, (like the vast majority of coffee drinkers on the planet), I did not know the actual temperature of the coffee I purchased, I would assume that, since it was coffee, prepared by passing boiling water through grounds, it would be hot, (as indicated by the bright orange words "HOT" printed around the edge of the cups at the time of the spill), and I still would not place it in a precarious place in my vehicle. However, if, (like the plaintif), I had purchased coffee from that particular store before, and knew from personal experience that this establishment's coffee was much hotter than other coffee I've purchased from other establishments, I would sure as heck not place it in a precarious spot in my vehicle.

 

If I did do something so incredibly stupid, I would not blame the store for my own idiocy.

 

America: Where stupidity is rewarded financially. :D:D

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...