+Kealani Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Legislation is pending to make the publishers of guide books liable for injuries sustained by visitors to dangerous sites. This will likely be interpreted to extend to geocaching.com and perhaps the individual hiding the cache. If passed, all my Hawaii geocaches will be immediately disabled. Quote Link to comment
+Ecylram Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Legislation is pending to make the publishers of guide books liable for injuries sustained by visitors to dangerous sites. This will likely be interpreted to extend to geocaching.com and perhaps the individual hiding the cache. If passed, all my Hawaii geocaches will be immediately disabled. Looks like it 'only' applies if there is an enticement to trespass and it is in response to guidebooks giving the impression that certain features on private property are publicly accessible, hence it's inclusion in a Guide Book. Votes coming up next week Quote Link to comment
+StarBrand Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Bit of an exaggerated title. Huge logical leap in reasoning to extend that to Geocaching. Not all Geocaches have any hazardous aspects. Can't see such a law passing and/or being fully constitutional. Quote Link to comment
+Ecylram Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 In reading the House & Senate versions of the bill, the trespasser has to meet the definition of a trespasser...meaning there were signs or it's fenced, enclosed, or secured in a way to keep people out. This also includes cropland being cultivated. The way the bills read now, Groundspeak (or the hider) would only be liable (if then) if the person was legally trespassing AND the seeker got hurt while trespassing. Quote Link to comment
+StarBrand Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 In reading the House & Senate versions of the bill, the trespasser has to meet the definition of a trespasser...meaning there were signs or it's fenced, enclosed, or secured in a way to keep people out. This also includes cropland being cultivated. The way the bills read now, Groundspeak (or the hider) would only be liable (if then) if the person was legally trespassing AND the seeker got hurt while trespassing. ....and - the listing page encouraged finders to ignore the fences and signs and mis-represented it to be public property. Quote Link to comment
+WRASTRO Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Legally trespassing? Perhaps trespassing as defined by law? Quote Link to comment
+Ecylram Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 (edited) Legally trespassing? Perhaps trespassing as defined by law? You are correct. That sentence was poorly written. Edited February 9, 2011 by Ecylram Quote Link to comment
+kunarion Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Legally trespassing? "Y'all are trespassin' now... illegally." -- Rat, "The Fantastic Mr. Fox" Quote Link to comment
+GeoGeeBee Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 In reading the House & Senate versions of the bill, the trespasser has to meet the definition of a trespasser...meaning there were signs or it's fenced, enclosed, or secured in a way to keep people out. This also includes cropland being cultivated. The way the bills read now, Groundspeak (or the hider) would only be liable (if then) if the person was legally trespassing AND the seeker got hurt while trespassing. ....and - the listing page encouraged finders to ignore the fences and signs and mis-represented it to be public property. Doesn't any listing of a cache on geocaching.com imply that it is placed with permission, and that finders have permission to seek it? Quote Link to comment
+dfx Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Doesn't any listing of a cache on geocaching.com imply that it is placed with permission, and that finders have permission to seek it? That doesn't automatically imply that the seeker should ignore signs that say otherwise. Quote Link to comment
+Team GPSaxophone Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Legislation is pending to make the publishers of guide books liable for injuries sustained by visitors to dangerous sites. This will likely be interpreted to extend to geocaching.com and perhaps the individual hiding the cache. If passed, all my Hawaii geocaches will be immediately disabled. Simple solution: Don't place caches at dangerous sites. Quote Link to comment
+kunarion Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Simple solution: Don't place caches at dangerous sites. And find better lawmakers. Quote Link to comment
+hzoi Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Legislation is pending to make the publishers of guide books liable for injuries sustained by visitors to dangerous sites. This will likely be interpreted to extend to geocaching.com and perhaps the individual hiding the cache. If passed, all my Hawaii geocaches will be immediately disabled. As Ecylram pointed out, this only applies to trespassers who relied on guidebooks. So...which of your two Hawai'ian caches were placed without permission and require trespassing to find? Quote Link to comment
+moose61 Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Looks it is no issue if: - you have permission of the landlord to place the cache - you ensure geocachers have permission to access the land - you add a note to the cache listing the geocacher is responsable for their own actions The first two you should have done anyhow for any hide. Quote Link to comment
+dakboy Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Bit of an exaggerated title. Huge logical leap in reasoning to extend that to Geocaching. Not all Geocaches have any hazardous aspects. Can't see such a law passing and/or being fully constitutional. In addition to the other points brought up, what about areas that are safe at the time of publication, and become unsafe a few years later? Is the publisher still liable? Hawaii's geography is constantly evolving, after all. Quote Link to comment
+Castle Mischief Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Looks it is no issue if: - you have permission of the landlord to place the cache - you ensure geocachers have permission to access the land - you add a note to the cache listing the geocacher is responsable for their own actions The first two you should have done anyhow for any hide. Don't you agree to that last bit when you sign up for an account? Quote Link to comment
+Kealani Posted February 9, 2011 Author Share Posted February 9, 2011 Queen's Bath, where I have a cache (GCTHC0), is often quoted as an example of the dangerous areas that need to be avoided. 1.) It is on the "beach", public land. 2.) There is a maintained trail to the site with a public parking lot at the trailhead. 3.) There are no "No Trespassing" signs. Ownership is not always simple to determine without a trip to the Courthouse and "dangerous" situations are relative. Queen's Bath is clearly dangerous during high surf but the risk can be avoided if you avoid the shoreline. It's possible to access the cache without getting into danger. Geocaching would be boring if it did not take you to the unusual, out of the way places, regardless of the risk. Shouldn't we assume that Geocahers are smart enough not to do stupid things? Quote Link to comment
+moose61 Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Looks it is no issue if: - you have permission of the landlord to place the cache - you ensure geocachers have permission to access the land - you add a note to the cache listing the geocacher is responsable for their own actions The first two you should have done anyhow for any hide. Don't you agree to that last bit when you sign up for an account? For me it is, looks like also for you, but I don't know if it counts for everybody. For me everybody is responsable for their own acts. Does not mean everybody takes that responsability... Quote Link to comment
+California66er Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Can't see such a law passing and/or being fully constitutional. And that's the key, really, is the Constitutionality of it. That being said, those kinds of processes take a lot of time and a lot of money to undergo, and I as a CO would much rather pull all of my caches than deal with even a remote legal headache like that. Do I think it's ever going to be an issue for GC.com? No, not at all. But discretion being the better part of valor, I for one would rather wait it out for someone else to establish the legal precedent. Quote Link to comment
+NYPaddleCacher Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Queen's Bath, where I have a cache (GCTHC0), is often quoted as an example of the dangerous areas that need to be avoided. 1.) It is on the "beach", public land. 2.) There is a maintained trail to the site with a public parking lot at the trailhead. 3.) There are no "No Trespassing" signs. Ownership is not always simple to determine without a trip to the Courthouse and "dangerous" situations are relative. Queen's Bath is clearly dangerous during high surf but the risk can be avoided if you avoid the shoreline. It's possible to access the cache without getting into danger. Geocaching would be boring if it did not take you to the unusual, out of the way places, regardless of the risk. Shouldn't we assume that Geocahers are smart enough not to do stupid things? I've been to Queen's Bath, but unfortunately that was a couple of months before Dave Ulmer hid the first stash and geocaching was born. I didn't walk/climb down into the bath itself and since I was there in winter when the surf is generally very high it was pretty obvious that climbing further down would be dangerous. If I recall, there was a very nice trail which led from a parking area to the bath. In cases like this it should be possible to place a cache along the trail in a safe area but still close enough to "the unusual" that most geocachers would still talk the additional 100 feet or so to view what you took there to see. Quote Link to comment
+geodarts Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 (edited) Not an end to caching as we know it, but interesting from a legal standpoint. If I tell someone how to trespass, is that enticing them to do something completely stupid? It might be overly broad if it were not limited to natural, probable, or forseeable consequences. How much proof do you need to assert that the guidebook made you do it? And if the guidebook warns against doing something stupid are they still liable? Will there be a rush to buy used copies of guidebooks? Will people print books advising people not to take a certain path in a certain area because it leads through private property and you might hurt yourself if you jump from the top of the falls? I have seen caches titled "Don't find this cache!" Can I sue Groundspeak if I ignore that advice? But it has been too long since I have taken torts to really think this through. I have been to Queen's Bath and would probably go there again if I can find a guidebook or cache that tells me how to do it. Edited February 10, 2011 by mulvaney Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.