Jump to content

Should reviewers be responsible for 'safety'?


sbell111

Recommended Posts

After thinking on the subject for awhile, I came up with something similar to what Doug mention, namely be sure to give a heads up to potential concerns (other than the obvious). On the topic of stupid, I met a young man in KS last summer who I had convinced that you could get the death penalty for missing a traffic court date in TX. He's in jail now for grand theft auto. So, I know stupid. Just glad I'm not related by blood.

Edited by jd-mitchell
Link to comment

One question that has to be raised is whether or not it's even POSSIBLE to sue Groundspeak. You agreed to there TOS, so there is nothing you can do... Is there?

In most U.S. legal jurisdictions, waivers cannot indemnify a company, its employees, or its volunteers against acts of gross negligence (as opposed to ordinary negligence). Even if the waiver explicitly states that one will not hold the company liable for gross negligence, such a provision generally is unenforceable in court as a matter of public policy.

 

Perhaps the state of Washington is one of the few exceptions. I'm sure Groundspeak's attorneys can give them an informed opinion on that matter.

Link to comment

To make reviewers responsible for maintaining safety would mean they would have to be able to judge accurately and consistently whether or not any cache failed to meet the accepted criteria. Without physically inspecting each hide they can not judge either accurately or consistently. There are not enough of them to physically inspect every cache. Something like this has to 100% or nothing, anything else dumps liability on Groundspeak. Since 100% is impossible, the only remaining option is nothing.

I guess this explains why parks never close hiking trails due to public safety concerns, such as a mother grizzly and two cubs feeding on a moose carcass in the brush a few yards from the trail. If they closed this trail, then they would be liable if someone was attacked on a trail miles away where no bears were known to be present.

 

If park staff keep track of three bears, then they are legally responsible for keeping track of all potentially dangerous wildlife in their jurisdiction: bears, cougars, wolverines, moose, elk, poisonous snakes and spiders, scorpions, bees, etc. Since monitoring 100% is impossible, the only remaining option is nothing.

 

Oh, wait a minute... Parks occasionally do close trails for public safety reasons, and I'm unaware of any of them being sued over some "100% or nothing" liability. They close trails in certain situations because, among other reasons, they don't want to be liable for negligence.

 

What an absolutely absurd comparison. Parks **"own" the land, and have a totally different degree of responsibility for the activity within. geocaching.com is merely a listing service that allows us to post our hidden caches online.

 

The park rangers are paid employees and are onsite monitoring the wildlife and property. They have a different set of guidelines and rules to follow and enforce. Many are even considered law enforcement officers. The reviewers are volunteers who review new cache listings to ensure that they comply with the guidelines for listing caches here. They don't go out to make a physical inspection of the location. Oftentimes they live hundreds of miles from the hide, but have adequate knowledge of local regulations and policies and the guidelines to allow them to provide this service.

 

Now if you want to hold the Boy Scout troop that did some volunteer trail maintenance six months earlier responsible for a bear attacking someone in that park as a viable comparison to the reviewer's level of responsibility for our safety I could support that. It would still be absurd, but at least the degree of responsibility for others behavior would be more appropriate.

 

I was bitten by a copperhead while looking for a cache in a municipal park two summers ago. I never considered holding anyone else responsible for my pain and suffering. Nor would any court have agreed that anyone else bore responsibility. It was my own stupidity for reaching into a dark place without poking it with a stick or using my flashlight first. I got off lucky; I have some minor scarring and loss of sensation in one fingertip. And had several weeks of pain and bruising.

 

**(OK technically the land is usually owned by some level of government entity and the park departments and employees are exist to manage those lands.)

Edited by wimseyguy
Link to comment

I guess this explains why parks never close hiking trails due to public safety concerns, such as a mother grizzly and two cubs feeding on a moose carcass in the brush a few yards from the trail....

What an absolutely absurd comparison. Parks **"own" the land, and have a totally different degree of responsibility for the activity within.

Yes, land owners/managers usually incur additional responsibilities. But liability for negligence doesn't end at your property line. If you know there's a car below and you intentionally kick a boulder down a cliff, then arguing that you don't own the cliff won't get you far with the judge.

 

geocaching.com is merely a listing service that allows us to post our hidden caches online.

Listing services aren't immune from negligence liability. Here's the second paragraph from the above link:

Negligence is a 'legal cause' of damage if it directly and in natural and continuous sequence produces or contributes substantially to producing such damage, so it can reasonably be said that if not for the negligence, the loss, injury or damage would not have occurred.

 

The reviewers are volunteers who review new cache listings to ensure that they comply with the guidelines for listing caches here.

Volunteers aren't immune from negligence liability either. Arguing you weren't paid to kick that boulder down the cliff won't impress that judge.

 

I was bitten by a copperhead while looking for a cache in a municipal park two summers ago. I never considered holding anyone else responsible for my pain and suffering.

Join the club. So far, I count exactly zero people who have expressed the opinion that reviewers should be responsible for the safety of every placed cache. If you had been mauled by a grizzy that park staff knew was feeding on a carcass next to a trail, then I'm guessing you might have been a little upset with the park if they had neither closed that trail nor posted any warning signs. You might even get a favorable judgment by a court.

Link to comment

Well, you have certainly provided some fodder for our aging grey matter.

You've heard our thoughts on the matter. What are yours? (Yes, we know you are not a lawyer)

Would creating and managing a website that other folks use to list the locations of hidden objects meet that oft quoted criteria?

"directly and in natural and continuous sequence produces or contributes substantially to producing such damage"

Link to comment

The fact that we are discussing the potential of blame being placed upon someone is just another thing that is wrong with our society.

 

First and foremost a person should be responsible for themselves. Don;t undertake anything that is not in your opinion safe even if someone else says it is. If you do you are the one responsible for the consequences.

 

Having someone responsible for the safety of an activity removes the responsibility of the individual for their own safety. Life is not safe nor is it fair.

Link to comment
Life is not safe nor is it fair.

True. But irrelevant. I think almost everyone who has participated in this thread would love to see a society in which a person is responsible for their own actions. Unfortunately, that does not change the reality, which is schiester lawyers suing everyone they can, in a effort to amass personal wealth, while wearing a mask of communal guardian, protecting the needy. Knowing that this is the reality, (despite our desires), I for one am glad the subject was raised for discussion. I would hate to hear a Judge's gaval hammer down on a multimillion dollar verdict because some goober spilled coffee in her lap while parking at a cache. :lol:

Link to comment

You've heard our thoughts on the matter. What are yours? (Yes, we know you are not a lawyer) Would creating and managing a website that other folks use to list the locations of hidden objects meet that oft quoted criteria?

This question arouse because a few people seem to have suggested that Groundspeak is immune from negligence liability because they are merely a listing service. For example:

At the end of the day, Geocaching.com is a listing service for owners of caches. It's no more responsible than a hiking website that lists hikes, a climbing website that lists climbs or a scuba site that lists dives.

But those hikes, climbs, and dives probably would exist and be visited whether or not any given web site listed them. Groundspeak is much more involved. On a couple occasions, I've cited the criteria (found here) that Clan Riffster mentioned:

Negligence is a 'legal cause' of damage if it directly and in natural and continuous sequence produces or contributes substantially to producing such damage, so it can reasonably be said that if not for the negligence, the loss, injury or damage would not have occurred.

I suspect this issue can get quite complicated with numerous factors to consider, so consult an attorney if you want a well informed opinion. But, since Clan Riffster asked, I'll present my less informed lay person's interpretation.

 

Let's assume the following scenario.

 

1. A cache hider places a cache that he knows is likely to cause foreseeable grave harm to people or property and recklessly disregards this knowledge. The hider then creates a web page description for this cache and submits it to Groundspeak for publication.

 

2. A Groundspeak reviewer evaluates this submitted cache, becomes aware that it is likely to cause foreseeable grave harm to people or property and recklessly disregards this knowledge. The reviewer recommends that Groundspeak should publish the cache description.

 

3. Groundspeak publishes the cache description on its web site.

 

4. A geocacher notices the cache description on the Groundspeak web site and searches for the cache.

 

5. During the search, the geocacher is severely injured in a foreseen way.

 

It appears to me that the Groundspeak reviewer is directly involved in the sequence of events that caused the injury; one doesn't have to stretch to bring that reviewer into the loop. In the vast majority of these kinds of scenarios, I think a reasonable person would conclude that if the reviewer had not acted negligently, then the injury would not have occurred.

 

Of course, there are possible exceptions. Here's one. Both the hider and the searcher are members of opencaching.com. If geocaching.com had not published the cache, then maybe the hider would have submitted it to OpenCaching and had it published there. The searcher then could have seen the OpenCaching listing, searched for it, and been injured. So the injury might have occurred even if Groundspeak hadn't acted negligently.

 

Most geocachers, however, are members of a single web site: geocaching.com. In these situations, I think negligence by the Groundspeak reviewer probably would be considered a "legal cause" of damage.

Link to comment

Your example lacks in enough detail for any reasonable person to make a judgement. IMHO.

 

What exactly was foreseeable?? Was it mentioned in the listing?? Was the cache rated properly?? Is the hazard apparent and obvious once on scene?? Is there any way at all to avoid the hazard?? Could a trained/experienced person avoid the hazard easily?? Is the area legal to be at??etc etc etc etc etc etc

 

It is these very questions that give Groundspeak good reason to NOT try and make any safety judgements.

Link to comment

1. A cache hider places a cache that he knows is likely to cause foreseeable grave harm to people or property and recklessly disregards this knowledge. The hider then creates a web page description for this cache and submits it to Groundspeak for publication.

 

2. A Groundspeak reviewer evaluates this submitted cache, becomes aware that it is likely to cause foreseeable grave harm to people or property and recklessly disregards this knowledge. The reviewer recommends that Groundspeak should publish the cache description.

 

3. Groundspeak publishes the cache description on its web site.

 

4. A geocacher notices the cache description on the Groundspeak web site and searches for the cache.

 

5. During the search, the geocacher is severely injured in a foreseen way.

I'm not sure this is a reasonable scenario, because of how it is laid out.

 

How would the Reviewer know about the foreseeable grave harm, unless that information was included on the cache page?

 

If it were included on the cache page, would the inclusion of that data keep the cache owner from being liable for injuries incurred by those fidiots who opt to ignore the information?

 

For instance; I own a 5/5 Wherigo night cache that takes you on a 2.5 mile bushwhack through a swamp infested with critters who find humans nutritious and delicious. Just being there during daylight hours is hazardous. Being there at night is doubly hazardous. Trying to move about in that environment while focusing on a GPSr screen could very easily get you killed or significantly injured. I spelled out these hazards on the cache page, so the Reviewer was obviously aware of them. Anyone who looks at the cache page is also aware of the dangers. If some mook decides they can tackle it, and chooses to ignore the warnings, am I liable? Is the Reviewer liable? Is Groundspeak liable?

 

My interpretation of negligence as a legal term would lead me to say "No", but I'm not a lawyer.

Link to comment

What exactly was foreseeable?? Was it mentioned in the listing?? Was the cache rated properly?? Is the hazard apparent and obvious once on scene?? Is there any way at all to avoid the hazard?? Could a trained/experienced person avoid the hazard easily?? Is the area legal to be at??etc etc etc etc etc etc

These are good questions to ask for purposes of determining whether an action is negligent. But the question I was answering in my post was: "When is a negligent action considered a 'legal cause' of damage?" For purposes of that discussion, I assumed the reviewer's action in my scenario constituted gross negligence.

 

It is these very questions that give Groundspeak good reason to NOT try and make any safety judgements.

Burying one's head in the sand doesn't immunize one from negligence liability.

Link to comment

If some mook decides they can tackle it, and chooses to ignore the warnings, am I liable?

Good question. My advice is to get an answer from a knowledgeable local attorney.

 

I will note that nothing I saw in the Groundspeak "terms of use" agreement seems to protect cache hiders from negligence liability. If that's true, then you could be liable for "ordinary negligence" as well as "gross negligence." Groundspeak reviewers probably only have to worry about "gross negligence."

Link to comment

I just don't know how a reviewer would ever know what is safe and what is a forseeable obvious hazard. A cacher died within the last year when he slipped and fell on frozen leaves near the cache location and fell off a cliff. Was the cache owner negligent in any way for placing a cache near a cliffside?? Was the reviewer negligent in publishing a cache that any topo map clearly showed near a cliffside?? Clearly it was hazardous to your health (given the results) or was it just an unfortuate accident? (his wife viewed it as the latter)

I think trying to determine safety on ANY cache just opens the door for a ton of problems with all caches that get published.

 

Once again, I strongly agree with the current policy to not review for safety. Anybody can file a lawsuit for just about any reason but that doesn't mean they will win. Altering the curerent poilcy would open the door to a ton of lawsuits in my opinion (nonlegal).

Edited by StarBrand
Link to comment

Good question. My advice is to get an answer from a knowledgeable local attorney.

I'd much rather have the opinion of someone who is not an attorney. That's why I asked for your opinion.

If I post the coordinates to a location, then point out that going there can get you killed, and spell out the dangers inherent to the location, do you think I would be liable for negligence? I can maybe see your point, if I posted the coordinates to a location and did not offer at least a modicum of warning regarding what hazards are on site, but that's not the case with the cache I cited. I would think my duty, from a civil liability standpoint, would be to warn folks about what dangers there are real, as well as what dangers are possible, then let folks decide for themselves if they can survive such a quest. If I tell you about the alligators and venomous snakes in an area, and you go in fully aware of those hazards, then get killed by an escaped, rampaging emu that I did not know about and could not reasonably foresee, is that my fault? Is it Groundspeak's fault? At what point does it become your problem?

Link to comment

If some mook decides they can tackle it, and chooses to ignore the warnings, am I liable?

Good question. My advice is to get an answer from a knowledgeable local attorney.

I'd much rather have the opinion of someone who is not an attorney. That's why I asked for your opinion.

Non-lawyers can provide legal education, as I hope I have been doing. Non-lawyers generally cannot provide legal advice. Here's some information about the unlicensed practice of law in Florida.

 

Note: I think this is starting to get off topic.

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

{snip}

Let's assume the following scenario.

{snip}

2. A Groundspeak reviewer evaluates this submitted cache, becomes aware that it is likely to cause foreseeable grave harm to people or property and recklessly disregards this knowledge. The reviewer recommends that Groundspeak should publish the cache description.

I have reviewed and published tens of thousands of cache submissions over the past eight years. I can truthfully say that I have never once had this exercise play out in my head. If I ever said to myself, "this cache is likely to cause forseeable grave harm, but I'm going to recklessly disregard this knowledge," I think I would remember that.

 

I don't think that way, because that's not what reviewing caches is all about.

 

Keystone

Juris Doctor, Duke University School of Law, Class of 1985

Link to comment

{snip}

Let's assume the following scenario.

{snip}

2. A Groundspeak reviewer evaluates this submitted cache, becomes aware that it is likely to cause foreseeable grave harm to people or property and recklessly disregards this knowledge. The reviewer recommends that Groundspeak should publish the cache description.

I have reviewed and published tens of thousands of cache submissions over the past eight years. I can truthfully say that I have never once had this exercise play out in my head. If I ever said to myself, "this cache is likely to cause forseeable grave harm, but I'm going to recklessly disregard this knowledge," I think I would remember that.

 

I don't think that way, because that's not what reviewing caches is all about.

 

Keystone

Juris Doctor, Duke University School of Law, Class of 1985

Your response is somewhat ambiguous. I might interpret them to mean that you would never recklessly disregard knowledge about caches that are likely to cause foreseeable grave harm.

 

Others might interpret them to mean that reviewers don't think about safety when they review caches.

 

Are Groundspeak reviewers allowed to consider safety when they determine whether a cache should be published?

Link to comment

{snip}

Let's assume the following scenario.

{snip}

2. A Groundspeak reviewer evaluates this submitted cache, becomes aware that it is likely to cause foreseeable grave harm to people or property and recklessly disregards this knowledge. The reviewer recommends that Groundspeak should publish the cache description.

I have reviewed and published tens of thousands of cache submissions over the past eight years. I can truthfully say that I have never once had this exercise play out in my head. If I ever said to myself, "this cache is likely to cause forseeable grave harm, but I'm going to recklessly disregard this knowledge," I think I would remember that.

 

I don't think that way, because that's not what reviewing caches is all about.

 

Keystone

Juris Doctor, Duke University School of Law, Class of 1985

Your response is somewhat ambiguous. I might interpret them to mean that you would never recklessly disregard knowledge about caches that are likely to cause foreseeable grave harm.

 

Others might interpret them to mean that reviewers don't think about safety when they review caches.

 

Are Groundspeak reviewers allowed to consider safety when they determine whether a cache should be published?

 

I believe the point he's making is that he's never come across a scenario where he saw "grave harm" and thought "publish anyway".

Link to comment

{snip}

Let's assume the following scenario.

{snip}

2. A Groundspeak reviewer evaluates this submitted cache, becomes aware that it is likely to cause foreseeable grave harm to people or property and recklessly disregards this knowledge. The reviewer recommends that Groundspeak should publish the cache description.

I have reviewed and published tens of thousands of cache submissions over the past eight years. I can truthfully say that I have never once had this exercise play out in my head. If I ever said to myself, "this cache is likely to cause forseeable grave harm, but I'm going to recklessly disregard this knowledge," I think I would remember that.

 

I don't think that way, because that's not what reviewing caches is all about.

 

Keystone

Juris Doctor, Duke University School of Law, Class of 1985

Your response is somewhat ambiguous. I might interpret them to mean that you would never recklessly disregard knowledge about caches that are likely to cause foreseeable grave harm.

 

Others might interpret them to mean that reviewers don't think about safety when they review caches.

 

Are Groundspeak reviewers allowed to consider safety when they determine whether a cache should be published?

 

I believe the point he's making is that he's never come across a scenario where he saw "grave harm" and thought "publish anyway".

That is how I read it. Actually it just might be just the first part - I think he might be saying he has never seen a cache submission that was "likely" to cause "forseeable grave harm"

Link to comment

Keystone,

 

Are you saying you have never seen something like this cache description submitted??

 

"Cache is located on grounds of the xxx state prison. Just on the inside of the electrified fencing. The fencing is charged to give an instantaneous lethal electrical shock should you come in contact with it. Included is a written letter from the Warden and Captain of the gaurd authorizing those that manage to survive the fence climb to both find the cache and exit via the front gates. Seekers may wish to bring suitable equipment to scale the fence. Parking is via the gaurd road behind to the north of the prison. Caution - those wearing Orage clothing may be mistaken for escaping prisons and are subject to being shot on sight." :o

Link to comment

Keystone,

 

Are you saying you have never seen something like this cache description submitted??

 

"Cache is located on grounds of the xxx state prison. Just on the inside of the electrified fencing. The fencing is charged to give an instantaneous lethal electrical shock should you come in contact with it. Included is a written letter from the Warden and Captain of the gaurd authorizing those that manage to survive the fence climb to both find the cache and exit via the front gates. Seekers may wish to bring suitable equipment to scale the fence. Parking is via the gaurd road behind to the north of the prison. Caution - those wearing Orage clothing may be mistaken for escaping prisons and are subject to being shot on sight." :o

 

What's it rated????

Link to comment

It's rated "R" and I think it's called "Shawshank Redemption."

No-no - that's the one that has a stage that requires the sewer crawl though fecal matter (Hazard is clearly stated). The actual cache for that one is located by the stone fence line under the black obsidian.

I remember that cache.

 

Terrible container. Plus it was buried, so I had to report it.

Link to comment

Non-lawyers can provide legal education, as I hope I have been doing.

Non-lawyers generally cannot provide legal advice.

Yeah, I get that. That's why I asked for your opinion.

I wasn't interested in legal advice. If I were, i'd ask a lawyer.

I'm also not interested in a legal education, as regards to this topic.

What I was interested in, was your opinion. Your thoughts. Your outlook.

 

If I create a cache with real hazards, and post warnings of those hazards, can I be held civilly liable for negligence?

If Groundspeak publishes such a cache, can they be found liable for negligence?

Link to comment

{snip}

Let's assume the following scenario.

{snip}

2. A Groundspeak reviewer evaluates this submitted cache, becomes aware that it is likely to cause foreseeable grave harm to people or property and recklessly disregards this knowledge. The reviewer recommends that Groundspeak should publish the cache description.

I have reviewed and published tens of thousands of cache submissions over the past eight years. I can truthfully say that I have never once had this exercise play out in my head. If I ever said to myself, "this cache is likely to cause forseeable grave harm, but I'm going to recklessly disregard this knowledge," I think I would remember that.

 

I don't think that way, because that's not what reviewing caches is all about.

 

Keystone

Juris Doctor, Duke University School of Law, Class of 1985

Your response is somewhat ambiguous. I might interpret them to mean that you would never recklessly disregard knowledge about caches that are likely to cause foreseeable grave harm.

 

Others might interpret them to mean that reviewers don't think about safety when they review caches.

 

Are Groundspeak reviewers allowed to consider safety when they determine whether a cache should be published?

 

I think Keystone made a clear response.

- and with the "JD" added, I believe you got your answer.

A reviewer makes sure all the guidelines are met and approves them if they are. Period.

I have 22 "5" terrain-rated caches under my (very old) belt.

Most needed special training and equipment to access (I have both).

All had directions on the cache page, stating what possible equipment may be needed and having the proper training to accomplish it. And all requiring gear had a warning that if you aren't sure of your training or equipment (know your limitations)- pass it up. You don't have to do every cache.

- That's what C&Ds are for. :)

Link to comment

Objective danger such as rappelling, is completely different than incidental danger such as live wires. The reviewer cannot monitor incidental dangers unless it is directly brought to their attention. The primary bearer of responsiblility is always the finder, with the hider being secondary. The reviewer can only prevent it at their discretion, like having it printed on the cache page, but cannot be held responsible.

 

Danger can be found at any cache. I witnessed someone trying to retrieve a LPC from their car without taking it out of gear. When a few bees came out, they panicked and scraped up the side of their car trying to flee. If someone had been standing in front of them, there would have been serious injury.

Link to comment

Reviewer: In your Reviewer Note, you mentioned that you had spotted numerous used needles in the dark holes surrounding the one where you placed your cache. Do you think you might want to find a nicer location for your hide?

 

 

Your argument is rather disingenuous. First you start by imagining a cache owner who has a reckless disregard for the safety of others. Then you imagine that this same cache owner is going to mention the hazard of used needles in his reviewer note. But of course, the sort of hider who would place a cache among a bunch of used needles, and refuse to mention it on the cache page "because it might reduce the number of visitors to the cache," is not going to mention it in a review note, either.

 

Although that scenario is highly unlikely to occur, they are showing that it is possible, and the reviewer can only review it and not approve it.

 

I could hide a 1300 cache powertrail with most of the hides being rather predictable 1/1.5's. I could title them nearly all of the same, and have a nearly identicle cache page for each. However #666 would be a 5/5 in a very loose boulder field just a few feet from the highway in a spot that no sane person would attempt to rappel to, with loose rocks and no tie off spot above. In addition, there could be a busy highway directly underneath of it. It would get published, but should it? Most cachers would be OK, but a few would invarably knock a few boulders onto cars below, or even slip off the edge. In the end the cacher is only responsible for their own actions, but the hider needs to accept a bit also. The reviewer has no control over monitoring the site, only from feedback or SBAs. If it was a standalone cache it would be much better, but still something that should not be done, and something that would push the guidelines to the very edge..

Did you correctly rate your hypothetical cache as a 5/5?

 

It would be rated a 5/5, but the rating would be the only visual difference on the page to distinguish it from the others. The attributes would not be used, like the rest of the series. In a series like that, I suspect mostly everyone does not read each individual page, nor writes individual logs.

If the cache is rated correctly, I don't see the problem. A proper warning has been given.
Link to comment

Non-lawyers can provide legal education, as I hope I have been doing.

Non-lawyers generally cannot provide legal advice.

Yeah, I get that. That's why I asked for your opinion.

I wasn't interested in legal advice. If I were, i'd ask a lawyer.

I'm also not interested in a legal education, as regards to this topic.

What I was interested in, was your opinion. Your thoughts. Your outlook.

 

If I create a cache with real hazards, and post warnings of those hazards, can I be held civilly liable for negligence?

If Groundspeak publishes such a cache, can they be found liable for negligence?

As I understand it, you probabaly could, but it would be a lot harder to do so.

Link to comment

Depends on how you want to "Define" safety.

 

Groundspeak doesn't allow caches to be placed at schools, government buildings, near train tracks, near important bridges, or at airports. This is for safety concerns as well as other concerns.

 

Now if a reviewer allowed a cache to placed at an airport, and the reviewer KNEW it was at an airport that this physical cache was placed at. Then by all means. The reviewer IS reponsible at least morally. Legally responsible is a question only the courts/lawyers can decide.

 

If a reviewer allows a cache on the North Wall of Eiger Mountain. No the reviewer shouldn't be held respondible for that. Sure the climb up the North face of Eiger Mountain is one of the most dangerous climbs in the world. But if your climbing that, you will know that & it's your fault if you attempt it or not.

 

So in short.. I would say yes the reviewer is responsible for some forms of saftey in so far as the reviewer is responsible for making sure that the cache in question meets groundspeaks/geocaching.com guidelines for placing a cache. Other than that... the reviewer isn't responsible for anything else.

 

If the CO violates geocaching.com's guidelines & breaks the law or does something unsafe, The CO is responsible. Not Groundspeak nor the reviewer.

 

WNT

Link to comment
Groundspeak doesn't allow caches to be placed at schools, government buildings, near train tracks, near important bridges, or at airports. This is for safety concerns as well as other concerns.

Not only are the guidelines regarding those examples not safety related, but I can't think of a safety issue with any of them.

 

What are the inherent dangers to searching for a cache at these places?

Link to comment
Groundspeak doesn't allow caches to be placed at schools, government buildings, near train tracks, near important bridges, or at airports. This is for safety concerns as well as other concerns.

Not only are the guidelines regarding those examples not safety related, but I can't think of a safety issue with any of them.

 

What are the inherent dangers to searching for a cache at these places?

Arrest, police record, tagged as a terrorist.

Link to comment
Groundspeak doesn't allow caches to be placed at schools, government buildings, near train tracks, near important bridges, or at airports. This is for safety concerns as well as other concerns.

Not only are the guidelines regarding those examples not safety related, but I can't think of a safety issue with any of them.

 

What are the inherent dangers to searching for a cache at these places?

Arrest, police record, tagged as a terrorist.

Those three things are not safety related.
Link to comment

Here is a book on rock climbing in my state.

 

Seeing that it is a published work, if I go climb one of the locations without the proper gear and fall and break every bone in my body, do I sue the authors? How about the publisher? How about amazon.com where I bought the book?

 

Perhaps I didn't read through all the disclaimers about rock climbing being dangerous. Do I have a leg to stand on (assuming it wasn't amputated after my injury) for a law suit?

 

I find it amazing that people would even consider that the cache owner, the reviewer, or Groundspeak would be liable at all for actions a cache seeker takes. Perhaps if the cache owner rigged a cache to explode, or shoot out anthrax, or contains a rabid hamster. Or if a reviewer was told that the cache had explosives and/or anthrax and/or a rabid hamster then the reviewer or Groundspeak would be liable.

 

But if the cache is on a cliff or up a tree or 50 feet under water or in a cave, you are responsible for your actions. Every cache doesn't need to be found. Even if it is your closest to home cache.

Link to comment

{snip}

Let's assume the following scenario.

{snip}

2. A Groundspeak reviewer evaluates this submitted cache, becomes aware that it is likely to cause foreseeable grave harm to people or property and recklessly disregards this knowledge. The reviewer recommends that Groundspeak should publish the cache description.

I have reviewed and published tens of thousands of cache submissions over the past eight years. I can truthfully say that I have never once had this exercise play out in my head. If I ever said to myself, "this cache is likely to cause forseeable grave harm, but I'm going to recklessly disregard this knowledge," I think I would remember that.

 

I don't think that way, because that's not what reviewing caches is all about.

 

Keystone

Juris Doctor, Duke University School of Law, Class of 1985

Your response is somewhat ambiguous. I might interpret them to mean that you would never recklessly disregard knowledge about caches that are likely to cause foreseeable grave harm.

 

Others might interpret them to mean that reviewers don't think about safety when they review caches.

 

Are Groundspeak reviewers allowed to consider safety when they determine whether a cache should be published?

 

You are repeating yourself. You have already been told that the reviewers base their evaluations on the guidelines. The guidelines do not mention safety.

Link to comment

I would like opinions on a particular cache (I am the owner): Maritime Adventure

 

As the description indicates, the cache involves significant potential dangers. However, for experienced hikers who take precautions, I believe it is reasonably safe. I have personally completed the hike many times and I am not a climber by any means. But, I definitely use common sense and experience.

 

I have been considering archiving the cache due to safety concerns. But, I would like to hear some opinions first. As you can see from a recent log, an injury did occur on the hike. But, other finders are ecstatic in their praise of the experience. I hate the thought of archiving it, but am worried at the same time.

 

One of my concerns, which I don't think has been mentioned so far in this thread, is paperless geocaching. It is so easy now to just hit "Find Next" and be off on the next quest without reading anything more than the title (if even that). I am certainly guilty of that, although only in urban situations. I guess I'm concerned about that happening with my cache.

 

Second, have I done enough to alert those who do read the listing of the dangers?

 

I'm also curious to know if lawsuits have ever been filed against cache owners, and if so, what the outcome was.

 

This is truly a spectacular cache site and provides a wonderful experience for those prepared for it. But, it could prove very dangerous for anyone not experienced. There is also the potential of even an experienced hiker becoming injured due to a loose or slippery rock, rogue wave, etc.

 

Any feedback greatly appreciated!

Link to comment

I would like opinions on a particular cache (I am the owner): Maritime Adventure

 

As the description indicates, the cache involves significant potential dangers. However, for experienced hikers who take precautions, I believe it is reasonably safe. I have personally completed the hike many times and I am not a climber by any means. But, I definitely use common sense and experience.

 

I have been considering archiving the cache due to safety concerns. But, I would like to hear some opinions first. As you can see from a recent log, an injury did occur on the hike. But, other finders are ecstatic in their praise of the experience. I hate the thought of archiving it, but am worried at the same time.

 

One of my concerns, which I don't think has been mentioned so far in this thread, is paperless geocaching. It is so easy now to just hit "Find Next" and be off on the next quest without reading anything more than the title (if even that). I am certainly guilty of that, although only in urban situations. I guess I'm concerned about that happening with my cache.

 

Second, have I done enough to alert those who do read the listing of the dangers?

 

I'm also curious to know if lawsuits have ever been filed against cache owners, and if so, what the outcome was.

 

This is truly a spectacular cache site and provides a wonderful experience for those prepared for it. But, it could prove very dangerous for anyone not experienced. There is also the potential of even an experienced hiker becoming injured due to a loose or slippery rock, rogue wave, etc.

 

Any feedback greatly appreciated!

'Paperless' geocachers still get the ratings and description. If they choose to ignore them, it's on them. That being said, even if someone completely ignored everything and went by coords alone, he would still have the ability to call off the hunt if he encountered a danger that he was not prepared for.
Link to comment

Are Groundspeak reviewers allowed to consider safety when they determine whether a cache should be published?

You are repeating yourself. You have already been told that the reviewers base their evaluations on the guidelines. The guidelines do not mention safety.

From the thread "Guidelines and railroads":

 

Under NO circumstances would I say "this cache is likely to cause forseeable grave harm." That could really hold up publication of your cache. :ph34r:

Link to comment

Are Groundspeak reviewers allowed to consider safety when they determine whether a cache should be published?

You are repeating yourself. You have already been told that the reviewers base their evaluations on the guidelines. The guidelines do not mention safety.

From the thread "Guidelines and railroads":

 

Under NO circumstances would I say "this cache is likely to cause forseeable grave harm." That could really hold up publication of your cache. :ph34r:

 

The railroad guideline is not about safety. It is about trespassing on railroad property, which is a federal offense.

Link to comment

Are Groundspeak reviewers allowed to consider safety when they determine whether a cache should be published?

You are repeating yourself. You have already been told that the reviewers base their evaluations on the guidelines. The guidelines do not mention safety.

From the thread "Guidelines and railroads":

 

Under NO circumstances would I say "this cache is likely to cause forseeable grave harm." That could really hold up publication of your cache. :ph34r:

 

The railroad guideline is not about safety. It is about trespassing on railroad property, which is a federal offense.

But the statement "Under NO circumstances would I say 'this cache is likely to cause foreseeable grave harm'" is about safety.

Link to comment

Are Groundspeak reviewers allowed to consider safety when they determine whether a cache should be published?

You are repeating yourself. You have already been told that the reviewers base their evaluations on the guidelines. The guidelines do not mention safety.

From the thread "Guidelines and railroads":

 

Under NO circumstances would I say "this cache is likely to cause forseeable grave harm." That could really hold up publication of your cache. :ph34r:

 

The railroad guideline is not about safety. It is about trespassing on railroad property, which is a federal offense.

But the statement "Under NO circumstances would I say 'this cache is likely to cause foreseeable grave harm'" is about safety.

Ah, I see were you are going with it. He didn't say it would prevent anything from being published. I suspect that he would be very careful about checking on your permission status for such a cache.

Link to comment

Are Groundspeak reviewers allowed to consider safety when they determine whether a cache should be published?

You are repeating yourself. You have already been told that the reviewers base their evaluations on the guidelines. The guidelines do not mention safety.

From the thread "Guidelines and railroads":

 

Under NO circumstances would I say "this cache is likely to cause forseeable grave harm." That could really hold up publication of your cache. :ph34r:

 

The railroad guideline is not about safety. It is about trespassing on railroad property, which is a federal offense.

But the statement "Under NO circumstances would I say 'this cache is likely to cause foreseeable grave harm'" is about safety.

Ah, I see were you are going with it. He didn't say it would prevent anything from being published. I suspect that he would be very careful about checking on your permission status for such a cache.

And what does permission status have to do with "foreseeable grave harm?"

 

In any case, I hope I've made it clear why I asked, "Are Groundspeak reviewers allowed to consider safety when they determine whether a cache should be published?"

Link to comment

 

In any case, I hope I've made it clear why I asked, "Are Groundspeak reviewers allowed to consider safety when they determine whether a cache should be published?"

 

i'm sure they are allowed, bu they don't do it, if they did this SERIES would have never been published

Link to comment

I'm not a lawyer. But I'm going to argue this from the perspective of a aggressive lawyer who seeks lawsuits.

 

I don't think reviewers are immune from lawsuits. The phrase from geocaching "you take all risk and responsibilities etc etc" only carries so much weight. Example, Garmin is being sued over it's directions on it's Nuvi although they have the same disclaimer as geocaching.

 

Source: http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Google-Maps-Utah-Woman-Lawsuit,news-6956.html

 

If it carried full immunity, every single company in America would use the same statement to protect them from law.

 

A good lawyer would argue that geocaching.com and reviewers don't take the review process seriously enough. They would also point out correctly that geocaches have been placed in areas that violate the rules of Groundspeak, thus showing a trend that geocaches are not reviewed properly.

 

Now the true cost of a lawsuit might not be the actual damages, but the cost of defending such a lawsuit.

 

But again, I'm not a lawyer, just giving an opinion that will probably be received negatively around here.

Edited by gpsblake
Link to comment

Here's an example of what I am talking about.

 

This cache is within 15 feet of a railroad. In fact, one of the busiest lines in South Carolina.

GC1PYJ6

 

Clearly in violation of Groundspeak's rules. Now, if someone was searching the area, and got hit by a train, yes, Groundspeak and the reviewer would probably face the mother of all lawsuits. I don't think the "we aren't responsible" or "we didn't know about the railroad" would hold up in court in a injury lawsuit.

Link to comment

Here's an example of what I am talking about.

 

This cache is within 15 feet of a railroad. In fact, one of the busiest lines in South Carolina.

GC1PYJ6

 

Clearly in violation of Groundspeak's rules. Now, if someone was searching the area, and got hit by a train, yes, Groundspeak and the reviewer would probably face the mother of all lawsuits. I don't think the "we aren't responsible" or "we didn't know about the railroad" would hold up in court in a injury lawsuit.

Looks to be a monument in a readily accessible public area. I see no issue.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...