Judging danger means legal liability?

[+CanadianRockies]

In these situations, however, existing guideline are almost surely being violated.

What about situations when existing guidelines are not being violated? For example, suppose I created a power trail and included some caches on a narrow public road that has no shoulders but does have several blind curves and hills. Assume the land manager has no existing prohibition on geocaches being placed on that road. Should Groundspeak publish the caches near these blind corners/hills?

Of course if local law enforcement or the department of transportation asks for these caches to be removed, you do know that they will be archived.

I didn't ask whether Groundspeak should archive caches when law enforcement or land managers request it. I asked whether Groundspeak should be proactive and not publish the questionable caches and perhaps prevent serious injuries and/or deaths from occurring.

You missed the point. He's saying that there is no reason for Groundspeak to intervene initially.

I understood his point, but his point avoided answering my question. The reason for Groundspeak to intervene initially is to be proactive and possibly prevent serious injuries and/or deaths from occurring.

[+CanadianRockies]

Edited to delete redundant point.

Edited June 27, 2011 by CanadianRockies

[mresoteric]

I've never suggested Groundspeak should forbid caches where the dangers are obvious.

 

Yet, you submit an example of an obvious danger for consideration.

 

Or, is it possible that you see the blind curve as not obvious while I see it as obvious as hell?

 

You see the problem?

As I've pointed out before, the danger is obvious to the geocachers who accept the risk and decide to park illegally. The danger is NOT obvious to the innocent occupants of the vehicle that comes around the blind curve and collides with the illegally parked car.

 

The danger SHOULD be obvious to ALL drivers regardless of whether they geocache or not.

 

This is the problem that you are not getting. You apparently don't pay attention to such things when you drive so you see it as not obvious.

 

I pay attention to these things when I drive so they are very obvious to me.

 

If you and I can't agree on it how is a reviewer supposed to figure out if it is obvious or not?

[+tozainamboku]

In these situations, however, existing guideline are almost surely being violated.

What about situations when existing guidelines are not being violated? For example, suppose I created a power trail and included some caches on a narrow public road that has no shoulders but does have several blind curves and hills. Assume the land manager has no existing prohibition on geocaches being placed on that road. Should Groundspeak publish the caches near these blind corners/hills?

Of course if local law enforcement or the department of transportation asks for these caches to be removed, you do know that they will be archived.

I didn't ask whether Groundspeak should archive caches when law enforcement or land managers request it. I asked whether Groundspeak should be proactive and not publish the questionable caches and perhaps prevent serious injuries and/or deaths from occurring.

You missed the point. He's saying that there is no reason for Groundspeak to intervene initially.

I understood his point, but his point avoided answering my question. The reason for Groundspeak to intervene initially is to be proactive and possibly prevent serious injuries and/or deaths from occurring.

I'm always afraid of rules and guideline that purport to be proactive and avoid some "foreseeable" problem from occuring. There is no way to foresee every stupid thing that a cache finder might do looking for a cache. Perhaps we ought to ban geocaching altogether before someone gets killed because they are looking at the arrow on a GPS and walk over a cliff. (Do you think Groundspeak is aware of this danger?)

 

Sure we have seen caches removed where a land manager indicates either that permission was never given or where they rescind permission because the cache was place in a manner they later deemed inappropriate. Let's not force Groundspeak and reviewers into the job of deciding when something it too dangerous and let the system to work as it currently does.

 

Personally, I think the Neveda DOT ought to be more proactive about trucks not stopping at railroad crossings then about geocachers stopping on the road to find a geocache.

Edited June 27, 2011 by tozainamboku

[knowschad]

It is generally pretty simple for a reviewer to see that a potential hide is too close to a school. I no longer see a reference in the Knowledge Books as to the exact meaning of "too close", but I believe I was quoted them once by my reviewer when I attempted to put a cache in a public park that too close to a school.

 

Too close to a terrorist target is somewhat subjective, but often can be spotted via satellite and aerial photos. I once tried to submit a fake water faucet stuck magnetically to a water tower. The reviewer came back with a question, "Is it attached to the water tower?". I was honest, and it was denied. I could have lied and it probably would have been published, but if it was later reported, it not only would have been archived, but any further caches I wanted to hide would certainly have been under close scrutiny.

 

Reviewers almost never know if a cache is buried or defaces property until is has been reported to them, at which time they typically will take whatever action they consider appropriate.

 

As to whether or not a cache is too close to a blind corner... that is pretty tough to judge from the tools at hand. And it is entirely possible that the cache could be well off the road and the shoulder plenty wide, but the cachers still leave the car on the pavement. You can't fix stupid.

[+CanadianRockies]

I understood his point, but his point avoided answering my question. The reason for Groundspeak to intervene initially is to be proactive and possibly prevent serious injuries and/or deaths from occurring.

I'm always afraid of rules and guideline that purport to be proactive and avoid some "foreseeable" problem from occuring.

Does that mean you're afraid of the guidelines concerning geocaches near schools, military bases, or potential terrorist targets? Would you prefer that Groundspeak waited until after someone complained before they archived such caches? Can you foresee how that might get geocaching banned in even more jurisdictions?

 

There is no way to foresee every stupid thing that a cache finder might do looking for a cache. Perhaps we ought to ban geocaching altogether before someone gets killed because they are looking at the arrow on a GPS and walk over a cliff. (Do you think Groundspeak is aware of this danger?)

Nobody in this tread has claimed that there's a way to foresee everything that geocachers might do. Nobody in this thread has argued that Groundspeak should veto obvious dangers. That straw man has been exposed repeatedly.

 

Let's not force Groundspeak and reviewers into the job of deciding when something it too dangerous and let the system to work as it currently does.

It's okay for Groundspeak to take into account the concerns of children at schools and the safety of nesting ducks. But when it comes to the safety of people at certain types of dangerous caches, you'd prefer to let the system work as it currently does.

 

Personally, I think the Neveda DOT ought to be more proactive about trucks not stopping at railroad crossings then about geocachers stopping on the road to find a geocache.

So, are you saying it's okay for NDOT to be proactive about certain types of safety, but it's not okay for Groundspeak to be proactive about the dangers of geocachers who illegally stop on a shoulderless road near blind curves/hills?

[mresoteric]

I understood his point, but his point avoided answering my question. The reason for Groundspeak to intervene initially is to be proactive and possibly prevent serious injuries and/or deaths from occurring.

I'm always afraid of rules and guideline that purport to be proactive and avoid some "foreseeable" problem from occuring.

Does that mean you're afraid of the guidelines concerning geocaches near schools, military bases, or potential terrorist targets? Would you prefer that Groundspeak waited until after someone complained before they archived such caches? Can you foresee how that might get geocaching banned in even more jurisdictions?

 

All of those are fairly easy to determine remotely via maps. You said something about schools earlier. There was a thread a couple of weeks ago where one of the mods stated the distance they use. I don't remember the number but I do remember it wasn't even ON school property but within a radius of it that apparently they have predetermined. Again, easily viewed from maps.

 

Nobody in this tread has claimed that there's a way to foresee everything that geocachers might do. Nobody in this thread has argued that Groundspeak should veto obvious dangers. That straw man has been exposed repeatedly.

 

You keep mentioning obvious and non-obvious but have yet demonstrated a reliable way to differentiate the 2. Repeated again, what is obvious to you may not be obvious to everyone. What is not obvious to you may be obvious to most.

 

Let's not force Groundspeak and reviewers into the job of deciding when something it too dangerous and let the system to work as it currently does.

It's okay for Groundspeak to take into account the concerns of children at schools and the safety of nesting ducks. But when it comes to the safety of people at certain types of dangerous caches, you'd prefer to let the system work as it currently does.

They don't care about the children as much as they care about having the bomb squad called in. I have no idea what you are talking about with the ducks.

 

Personally, I think the Neveda DOT ought to be more proactive about trucks not stopping at railroad crossings then about geocachers stopping on the road to find a geocache.

So, are you saying it's okay for NDOT to be proactive about certain types of safety, but it's not okay for Groundspeak to be proactive about the dangers of geocachers who illegally stop on a shoulderless road near blind curves/hills?

 

Isn't safety actually kind of NDOT's job and not so much for Groundspeak?

[+d+n.s]

As an adult I independently judge how dangerous any activity I'm about to engage in is. I don't need Groundspeak to tell me something is dangerous. I can get there and figure that out on my own as it's usually somewhat obvious once you get there.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the OP...

 

it has everything to do with the OP...GC can't be held liable for people's stupidity, that's what the Darwin award is for

Not really though... The OP was asking specifically about the laws on the subject. Instead we get replies of people explaining why they don't need Groundspeak to judge danger in caches because they aren't stupid? Its beside the point. OP wanted to know about the specifics of the law, not why we think the rules are/should be a certain way. You can definitely be held liable for someone else's stupidity.

If someone leans on a speaker and kills someone, I can be held liable for assuring that its safe. It doesn't matter if it was clear to everyone that the thing would tip if you leaned on it.

 

I always see that on these forums.

"You think this TB looks like it's been muggled?"

"Don't hide something you can't part with."

"... I didn't?"

 

and many people have already stated that GS is not liable, now what?

 

the example you are providing is in no way related to our case....YOU are the person responsible to ensure that those speakers are firmly in place...the store that sold you the speakers is not liable

 

in this context GS is the store...they barely store the items for you, what you do with them is your own responsibility

 

and i believe the GS disclaimer has already been posted on the previous page so the OP's question has been answered several times, however he has been asked twice to explain what his personal beef is with this subject and he keeps avoiding to answer...so afaic this is not exactly a "just out of curiosity" thread

Maybe I wasn't clear. If I know they are dangerous and do nothing to stop them, I can be sued for negligence. It doesn't matter if I ever touched them. I am actually safer if I DON'T KNOW. That said, the basic premise of what you say is true. I work for the company, WE set it up and I have professional knowledge. It doesn't matter if I hire a rigger to do the actual rigging.

 

Also, your analogy is a little shaky. The CO is the guy who made the cache GS is the one who lists it. Not sure how that relates to a rental or set-up company, but I suspect it's not 1:1 like you imply.

 

And finally, I never one stated my information was terribly useful. In fact I said the oposite. I was just trying to inject something other than a repeated opinion. Perhaps, I'm crazy, but your response comes off as a little agressive/dismissive considering I don't actually disagree with you in the slightest.

 

Something worth noting about criminal negligence from Wikipedia:

But the larger percentage of deaths result from situations where there is either no intention to injure another, or only an intention to inflict less serious injury. The need is therefore to be able to distinguish between those who happened to be present when another died accidentally or through misadventure, and those who have contributed to the death in a way that makes them criminally rather than merely morally responsible. For example, suppose that A, an expert in kayaking, organises an outing for local children who are learning the sport. They travel to a large lake but, after an hour of paddling, they are overtaken by a violent storm and some of the children drown despite the fact that all are wearing life-preservers. If all the kayaks, paddles and ancillary equipment are shown to have been in good condition, the storm had not been forecast by the meteorological services, and it was reasonable for these children to undertake this type of outing given their level of skill, A will not have liability. But if many of the children were too inexperienced and a storm had been forecast, A might well be found liable by a jury.

[edit]

A stronger analogy would be using the above example. The Kyak instructor would be the CO I assume and GS would be the company who printed the fliers.

However, I suspect if it could be PROVED the flier company KNEW they were advertising something that would get children killed, they could potentially be sued (not arrested) for some form of negligence. I'm not saying the plaintiff would have an easy time or win, but I suppose they could have case.

[+TheLoneGrangers]

Honestly to me, even though your posts are well written and sound intelligent, you are not making any sense, who is to decide what is dangerous? If ground speak says a blind corner cache is dangerous to muggle motorists. Then rock climbing caches are dangerous to muggle rock climbers because the georockclimbers could get them killed by falling rocks or them falling on the innocent bystanders them self, or get themselves stranded and SAR teams could get themselves killed for attempting to rescue. We don't need ground speak to step in and be Big Brother.

[+tozainamboku]

I understood his point, but his point avoided answering my question. The reason for Groundspeak to intervene initially is to be proactive and possibly prevent serious injuries and/or deaths from occurring.

I'm always afraid of rules and guideline that purport to be proactive and avoid some "foreseeable" problem from occuring.

Does that mean you're afraid of the guidelines concerning geocaches near schools, military bases, or potential terrorist targets? Would you prefer that Groundspeak waited until after someone complained before they archived such caches? Can you foresee how that might get geocaching banned in even more jurisdictions?

For schools and military bases, the new guidelines indicate that part of the problem is that these locations rarely give permission. As such they allow the reviewers to question the permission here while in other cases they will accept that the cacher checked a box. In many jurisdictions reviewers ask for similar permission for cemeteries.

 

With regard to terrorist targets, it does bother me that reviewers use judgment to decide whether a cache is going to be problematic. I expect that the number of bomb squad situations is high enough as it is with reviewers making these judgments that Groundspeak figures they can preemptively avoid the worst situations. If there were more snowplow incidents that made the news, perhaps Groundspeak would adopt a similar guideline for roadside caches. The fact is very few, if any, injuries have been reported for the kinds of caches you are concerned about.

 

Certainly I would not belittle the tragedy should someone be killed, but perhaps you are overestimating the risk. More likely, the cache placement itself would not be blamed so much as the individual whose lack of reasonable care when hunting the cache resulted in injury to themselves or others.

 

There is no way to foresee every stupid thing that a cache finder might do looking for a cache. Perhaps we ought to ban geocaching altogether before someone gets killed because they are looking at the arrow on a GPS and walk over a cliff. (Do you think Groundspeak is aware of this danger?)

Nobody in this tread has claimed that there's a way to foresee everything that geocachers might do. Nobody in this thread has argued that Groundspeak should veto obvious dangers. That straw man has been exposed repeatedly.

You still haven't come up with a good definition for non-obvious or told us how a reviewer could judge this.

 

Like other guidelines, should a specific problem become serious enough, Groundspeak could adopt guidelines to address it. In this I agree with your premise in the OP that it would not change Groundspeak's liability. Given some recent issues with roadside power trails, it would not surprise me to see a guideline specifically aimed at roadside caches where there is not a safe area to park nearby.

 

Let's not force Groundspeak and reviewers into the job of deciding when something it too dangerous and let the system to work as it currently does.

It's okay for Groundspeak to take into account the concerns of children at schools and the safety of nesting ducks. But when it comes to the safety of people at certain types of dangerous caches, you'd prefer to let the system work as it currently does.

Correct.

 

Groundspeak has decided that elementary and secondary schools probably did not give adequate permission so allows the reviewer to ask for additional permission. They also allow the reviewer to enforce a buffer zone around these locations because people searching for the cache might look suspicious.

 

I don't know the specifics of the duck story. My guess is most like this was a published cache and either the land manager or possibly a geocacher indicated the nest. Perhaps because of local ordinance it became clear that there was no longer adequate permission for the cache.

 

I believe that many of the locations you are concerned about could be handled the same way. Let the reviewer know that given the danger it is unlikely the cache had adequate permission. (A request from the land owner/manager will almost certainly get the cache archived). Making the reviewers guess as to whether there is some non-obvious danger before publishing the cache make no sense.

 

Personally, I think the Neveda DOT ought to be more proactive about trucks not stopping at railroad crossings then about geocachers stopping on the road to find a geocache.

So, are you saying it's okay for NDOT to be proactive about certain types of safety, but it's not okay for Groundspeak to be proactive about the dangers of geocachers who illegally stop on a shoulderless road near blind curves/hills?

Actually this example was to point out that accidents do happen, no matter what safety features you put in place. And often these safety features are put in place only after a tragedy like the train crash this weekend. You seem very intent on preemptively preventing an accident when you have very little evidence that these caches actually cause accidents. Even the snowplow incident on the ET highway was described as a near miss.

[+sbell111]

Post #1 says "If Groundspeak were to archive (or never publish in the first place) certain caches they deemed to be unacceptably dangerous, then why would this make them legally liable for the safety of all active caches?"

 

I took that to be what you were talking about and wanted clarification on. It was not clear to me, even by Post #9, that what you were really saying is that you want Groundspeak to not publish certain caches because they "know" they are dangerous.

Yes, my question in Post #1 was the one I originally was discussing and wanted clarification on. But the thread deviated from that subject somewhat, and I tried to respond to some of the more on-topic points as well. By the time you asked your question in Post #58, I thought you would have realized what type of dangerous caches I believe Groundspeak should archive and/or not publish.

 

I put "know" in quotation marks simply because it is preposterous to think that a reviewer could know that a cache is too dangerous for any particular cacher. Even your example of the blind curve presupposes that the cacher is approaching in a car, and not hiking cross-country to the cache.

"Know" wasn't the best word choice. Changing it to "can reasonably foresee" would be better.

 

I fail to understand how my blind-curve example is preposterous merely because it presupposes the cacher arrives at the location in a car. Based on previous experiences, it seems quite reasonable to assume most cachers will arrive in vehicles, but feel free to expand the example to include cross-country hikers as well.

I'm confused. I thought that your position was that known dangers (such as scuba) are fine and that you merely want GS to take action against dangers that a geocacher might not be able to 'reasonably foresee'. However, now it appears that you actually want them to take action against foreseeable dangers. You see, a driver entering a blind curve should know that there may be an unseen danger, such as stopped traffic.

 

Would it be fair to sum up your postion as 'there are some geocaches that you don't approve of and you want them gone', because it doesn't seem to be an issue of foreseeable danger v. unforeseeable danger.

[+CanadianRockies]

I understood his point, but his point avoided answering my question. The reason for Groundspeak to intervene initially is to be proactive and possibly prevent serious injuries and/or deaths from occurring.

I'm always afraid of rules and guideline that purport to be proactive and avoid some "foreseeable" problem from occuring.

Does that mean you're afraid of the guidelines concerning geocaches near schools, military bases, or potential terrorist targets? Would you prefer that Groundspeak waited until after someone complained before they archived such caches? Can you foresee how that might get geocaching banned in even more jurisdictions?

For schools and military bases, the new guidelines indicate that part of the problem is that these locations rarely give permission. As such they allow the reviewers to question the permission here while in other cases they will accept that the cacher checked a box. In many jurisdictions reviewers ask for similar permission for cemeteries.

For schools and military bases, the guidelines also indicate: "Geocachers who are actively searching for a cache are likely to arouse suspicion in such environments, and we want to avoid this situation."

 

That's Groundspeak trying "to be proactive and avoid some 'foreseeable' problem from occuring." Yet, you said you're "afraid" of this type of guideline.

 

Anticipating potential problems can be good. I think it's considerate of Groundspeak not to make school children uncomfortable, military personnel suspicious, and mourners upset. I'm glad they don't wait until complaints are lodged before they prohibit these types of caches.

 

Forseeing possible problems is in Groundspeak's interest as well. They could allow people to bury caches, but they generally don't. They have the wisdom to foresee that many land managers would complain, and some would ban geocaching in their jurisdictions. That's the kind of problem Groundspeak doesn't need.

 

With regard to terrorist targets, it does bother me that reviewers use judgment to decide whether a cache is going to be problematic. I expect that the number of bomb squad situations is high enough as it is with reviewers making these judgments that Groundspeak figures they can preemptively avoid the worst situations.

If I understand you correctly, you would prefer it if Groundspeak did NOT pre-emptively avoid the worst bomb-scare situations. I think geocaching already gets enough bad press from bomb scares. I certainly wouldn't like to see more and worse scares. If that were to happen, then I could foresee entire towns and cities banning geocaching.

 

You seem very intent on preemptively preventing an accident when you have very little evidence that these caches actually cause accidents. Even the snowplow incident on the ET highway was described as a near miss.

Apparently, you think it's better to wait until a tragedy occurs before Groundspeak removes the offending cache. I think they should learn from these kinds of incidents and prohibit certain types of caches where Groundspeak can reasonably foresee serious problems.

[+CanadianRockies]

There is no way to foresee every stupid thing that a cache finder might do looking for a cache. Perhaps we ought to ban geocaching altogether before someone gets killed because they are looking at the arrow on a GPS and walk over a cliff. (Do you think Groundspeak is aware of this danger?)

Nobody in this tread has claimed that there's a way to foresee everything that geocachers might do. Nobody in this thread has argued that Groundspeak should veto obvious dangers. That straw man has been exposed repeatedly.

You still haven't come up with a good definition for non-obvious or told us how a reviewer could judge this.

I'm willing to trust Groundspeak reviewers to use their common sense and make reasonable judgements, just as they do for a whole host of other issues.

 

My point was that nobody has suggested that Groundspeak should prohibit caches where the risks are obvious, such as SCUBA diving, rock climbing, cave crawling, and walking beside cliffs. You're attacking an argument that nobody has made. You're beating up a straw man. It's a rather pointless battle.

[knowschad]

Anticipating potential problems can be good. I think it's considerate of Groundspeak not to make school children uncomfortable, military personnel suspicious, and mourners upset. I'm glad they don't wait until complaints are lodged before they prohibit these types of caches.

Actually, we have been told several times by reviewers and moderators and those that were here early-on that most of those guidelines arose exactly because specific complaints were lodged in those situations.

[+CanadianRockies]

Anticipating potential problems can be good. I think it's considerate of Groundspeak not to make school children uncomfortable, military personnel suspicious, and mourners upset. I'm glad they don't wait until complaints are lodged before they prohibit these types of caches.

Actually, we have been told several times by reviewers and moderators and those that were here early-on that most of those guidelines arose exactly because specific complaints were lodged in those situations.

Exactly my point. Groundspeak has learned from previous incidents. Now, they don't wait until a complaint is lodged against a specific cache of these types before reacting. Instead, they have the wisdom to foresee that certain types of caches are likely to create problems, and they proactively prohibit these types of caches.

Edited June 28, 2011 by CanadianRockies

[knowschad]

Anticipating potential problems can be good. I think it's considerate of Groundspeak not to make school children uncomfortable, military personnel suspicious, and mourners upset. I'm glad they don't wait until complaints are lodged before they prohibit these types of caches.

Actually, we have been told several times by reviewers and moderators and those that were here early-on that most of those guidelines arose exactly because specific complaints were lodged in those situations.

Exactly my point. Groundspeak has learned from previous incidents. Now, they don't wait until a complaint is lodged against a specific cache of these types before reacting. Instead, they have the wisdom to foresee that certain types of caches are likely to create problems, and they proactively prohibit these types of caches.

No, not even close to your point. Groundspeak received complaints. Groundspeak had their little huddled meetings, and out from some of those meetings came a new guideline. Once the guideline is there, the hiders are expected to follow them, and the reviewers are tasked with trying as well as they can to ensure that they are followed. Some of those guidelines can be easily checked with maps and photos, others not so easily, or not at all. Many of them require reports from the field.

[+CanadianRockies]

Anticipating potential problems can be good. I think it's considerate of Groundspeak not to make school children uncomfortable, military personnel suspicious, and mourners upset. I'm glad they don't wait until complaints are lodged before they prohibit these types of caches.

Actually, we have been told several times by reviewers and moderators and those that were here early-on that most of those guidelines arose exactly because specific complaints were lodged in those situations.

Exactly my point. Groundspeak has learned from previous incidents. Now, they don't wait until a complaint is lodged against a specific cache of these types before reacting. Instead, they have the wisdom to foresee that certain types of caches are likely to create problems, and they proactively prohibit these types of caches.

No, not even close to your point. Groundspeak received complaints. Groundspeak had their little huddled meetings, and out from some of those meetings came a new guideline. Once the guideline is there, the hiders are expected to follow them, and the reviewers are tasked with trying as well as they can to ensure that they are followed. Some of those guidelines can be easily checked with maps and photos, others not so easily, or not at all. Many of them require reports from the field.

Let me try to spell it out for you even more.

 

My point is that anticipating potential problems can be good.

 

Groundspeak received complaints about certain types of caches (e.g., schools, military bases, cemeteries, buried).

 

Groundspeak could have continued reacting to specific complaints about specific caches of these types and continued archiving individual caches on a case-by-case basis. But if they did that, then lots of school children, military personnel, mourners, and land managers would continue to get upset, Groundspeak would continue to get bad press, and geocaching might get banned in certain jurisdictions.

 

Instead Groundspeak learned from these incidents, foresaw that these potential problems would continue, had their meetings, and adopted new guidelines that addressed these issues. Today, Groundspeak reviewers generally will proactively decline to publish caches that violate these guidelines.

 

By foreseeing potential problems and proactively declining to publish general types of caches instead of reactively archiving specific problem caches, Groundspeak avoids many problems. Ergo, anticipating potential problems can be good.

[knowschad]

Anticipating potential problems can be good. I think it's considerate of Groundspeak not to make school children uncomfortable, military personnel suspicious, and mourners upset. I'm glad they don't wait until complaints are lodged before they prohibit these types of caches.

Actually, we have been told several times by reviewers and moderators and those that were here early-on that most of those guidelines arose exactly because specific complaints were lodged in those situations.

Exactly my point. Groundspeak has learned from previous incidents. Now, they don't wait until a complaint is lodged against a specific cache of these types before reacting. Instead, they have the wisdom to foresee that certain types of caches are likely to create problems, and they proactively prohibit these types of caches.

No, not even close to your point. Groundspeak received complaints. Groundspeak had their little huddled meetings, and out from some of those meetings came a new guideline. Once the guideline is there, the hiders are expected to follow them, and the reviewers are tasked with trying as well as they can to ensure that they are followed. Some of those guidelines can be easily checked with maps and photos, others not so easily, or not at all. Many of them require reports from the field.

Let me try to spell it out for you even more.

 

My point is that anticipating potential problems can be good.

 

Groundspeak received complaints about certain types of caches (e.g., schools, military bases, cemeteries, buried).

 

Groundspeak could have continued reacting to specific complaints about specific caches of these types and continued archiving individual caches on a case-by-case basis. But if they did that, then lots of school children, military personnel, mourners, and land managers would continue to get upset, Groundspeak would continue to get bad press, and geocaching might get banned in certain jurisdictions.

 

Instead Groundspeak learned from these incidents, foresaw that these potential problems would continue, had their meetings, and adopted new guidelines that addressed these issues. Today, Groundspeak reviewers generally will proactively decline to publish caches that violate these guidelines.

 

By foreseeing potential problems and proactively declining to publish general types of caches instead of reactively archiving specific problem caches, Groundspeak avoids many problems. Ergo, anticipating potential problems can be good.

 

Let me try to spell it out for you... Groundspeak came out with guidelines to address certain, specific types of situations, not the vague psuedo-dangers that you can't even seem to nail down. No thank you. I have more than enough nannies already.

[+t4e]

i've followed this thread for a while now and we are 8 pages later and i honestly can't see what exactly are we trying to establish here anymore and what is the purpose of this discussion anyway?

[knowschad]

i've followed this thread for a while now and we are 8 pages later and i honestly can't see what exactly are we trying to establish here anymore and what is the purpose of this discussion anyway?

 

Eight pages? Gee, I thought we were only on the third page, and I was already thinking exactly what you were!

[+Sol seaker]

What's true is that I have problems with some sections of power trails, specifically those that create situations that can Groundspeak can reasonably foresee to be dangerous but where innocent drivers cannot.

 

In your opinion.

 

You don't seem to get that what is not obvious to you may very well be blatantly obvious to the next guy.

 

Again, I am very aware of the dangers of blind curves. You may drive along completely oblivious to this danger, but that doesn't mean every else does.

 

So, are we really talking about non-obvious dangers or are we really talking about dangers you don't like?

 

This is confusing for me as well.

 

If you're saying caches with obvious dangers are alright, and they should only archive caches with dangers that are not obvious, then how do you expect the reviews to know if it is dangerous if it is not obvious?

 

ANY cache can have hidden dangers, such as the example of the slippery log at the cache where I badly injured myself.

There is no reason to archive that cache because I found a hidden danger there. I'm sure of all the cachers who have been there after me, no one has gotten hurt.

There is no way a reviewer could have foreseen that hidden danger and saved me from months of pain and misery and not being able to walk more than 50 feet. I would really hate it if they were to try.

 

And don't you see, that once Groundspeak starts archiving caches for being dangerous(either hidden OR obvious dangers), then they have basically put their seal of approval on those that are left. That's what leaves them open to lawsuit.

This is how things work in the US. I don't like it, I don't agree with it, but this is how it is.

I'm sure Canada is not so lawsuit happy as people in the US (Thank God it is more sane somewhere) but this is what we have to deal with here.

[+Sol seaker]

i've followed this thread for a while now and we are 8 pages later and i honestly can't see what exactly are we trying to establish here anymore and what is the purpose of this discussion anyway?

 

Eight pages? Gee, I thought we were only on the third page, and I was already thinking exactly what you were!

 

 

LOL.

 

I thought we were on the third too, but since it is eight, then this has definitely gone on way too long.

 

It seems to be the thread-owner sticking hard and fast to something the rest of us can't quite figure out, but none of us agree with.

[AZcachemeister]

Like a train wreck...I can't help looking...

[+TheLoneGrangers]

LOL AZ

[+CanadianRockies]

What's true is that I have problems with some sections of power trails, specifically those that create situations that can Groundspeak can reasonably foresee to be dangerous but where innocent drivers cannot.

There is no way a reviewer could have foreseen that hidden danger and saved me from months of pain and misery and not being able to walk more than 50 feet.

Of course reviewers cannot foresee every hidden danger. That would be unreasonable to expect. Reviewers can only judge dangers that they can reasonably foresee (see bolded phrase, above).

 

And don't you see, that once Groundspeak starts archiving caches for being dangerous (either hidden OR obvious dangers), then they have basically put their seal of approval on those that are left. That's what leaves them open to lawsuit.

I think you need to double-check your source (and perhaps provide a link so we can review it as well). In the United States, a tool company can manufacture chainsaws and screwdrivers. If they put warning labels on their chainsaws, that doesn't mean they're guaranteeing all their label-less screwdrivers are perfectly safe. In fact, putting warnings on their chainsaws generally reduces their liability; it doesn't increase it. Here's a link to some general information and a citation to a U.S. case.

 

As well, several people have pointed out that Groundspeak's Terms of Use agreement and disclaimers make it clear that Groundspeak does NOT put their seal of approval on any of their caches.

[knowschad]

 

Somehow I sense that a request for a citation will soon be upon us.

 

And don't you see, that once Groundspeak starts archiving caches for being dangerous(either hidden OR obvious dangers), then they have basically put their seal of approval on those that are left. That's what leaves them open to lawsuit.

This is how things work in the US. I don't like it, I don't agree with it, but this is how it is.

[+JBnW]

And now the time has come:

 

[+t4e]

i've followed this thread for a while now and we are 8 pages later and i honestly can't see what exactly are we trying to establish here anymore and what is the purpose of this discussion anyway?

 

Eight pages? Gee, I thought we were only on the third page, and I was already thinking exactly what you were!

 

 

LOL.

 

I thought we were on the third too, but since it is eight, then this has definitely gone on way too long.

 

It seems to be the thread-owner sticking hard and fast to something the rest of us can't quite figure out, but none of us agree with.

 

well it depends how many posts per page you have the forum set at

 

maybe i should use the number of replies instead, 128 replies later i am none the wiser

Edited June 29, 2011 by t4e

[+GeoGeeBee]

The original question in this thread was:

 

If Groundspeak were to archive (or never publish in the first place) certain caches they deemed to be unacceptably dangerous, then why would this make them legally liable for the safety of all active caches?

 

I provided an answer in post #43.

 

As far as I can tell, every post in this thread other than those is off-topic. People aren't answering the question "why would this make them legally liable?" Instead, people are answering that they don't need GS to make this judgment call for them. And the OP is playing along and arguing that GS should judge the safety of caches.

 

If that's what this thread is about, it should be merged with one of the numerous other threads on this topic. Otherwise, the thread should be closed as it has drifted far off the topic suggested in the thread title and the original post.

[+tozainamboku]

The original question in this thread was:

 

If Groundspeak were to archive (or never publish in the first place) certain caches they deemed to be unacceptably dangerous, then why would this make them legally liable for the safety of all active caches?

 

I provided an answer in post #43.

 

As far as I can tell, every post in this thread other than those is off-topic. People aren't answering the question "why would this make them legally liable?" Instead, people are answering that they don't need GS to make this judgment call for them. And the OP is playing along and arguing that GS should judge the safety of caches.

 

If that's what this thread is about, it should be merged with one of the numerous other threads on this topic. Otherwise, the thread should be closed as it has drifted far off the topic suggested in the thread title and the original post.

It was the OP's reply to that post that changed the topic of the thread.

 

He argues that Groundspeak would not be reviewing caches for all safety concerns and the disclaimer would still appear on each page. Instead he wants guidelines to prohibit caches with certain type of dangers (which he refers to as non-obvious). Clearly the reviewers would not be able to guarentee the all caches with these non-obvious dangers would be detected prior to publishing and that after publishing it would depend on cachers who find such non-obvious dangers reporting these. He sees this as no different that a no bury guideline or an adequate permission guideline. Since any guideline is imperfect in its implementation, geocachers should still use caution is hunting all caches. He is more concerned with the cachers who are going to be careless anyhow. If there are fewer dangerous caches (especially one where a cacher might not be expecting danger) there is less chance of accident. And shouldn't Groundspeak be interested is reducing Geocaching accidents regardless of whether or not they are liable for them?

 

That basically changes the topic to what is his definition of non-obvious dangers and how does he expect reviewers to detect them; and perhaps a discussion as to whether or not Grounspeak does have any interest in preventing accidents by reducing the number of caches in which the OP perceives risks.

[Clan Riffster]

Instead, they have the wisdom to foresee that certain types of caches are likely to create problems, and they proactively prohibit these types of caches.

Really? When did this start? From reading various posts in these forums, and the attached news stories, it seems that the most problematic caches are those placed on private property, such as business parking lots. These certainly appear to be getting the lion's share of the visits from the bomb squads. It could be said that Groundspeak did take some steps to limit this, but I wouldn't call their response proactive, or effective.

 

Groundspeak updated the guidelines, strengthening them a bit as regards to caches on private property, with the following lines: "Obtain the landowner's and/or land manager's permission before you hide any geocache, whether placed on private or public property." and "If you are given permission to place a cache on private property, indicate this on the cache page for the benefit of the reviewer and those seeking the cache." Prior to this, you could only find wording this strong in the tips to hiding a geocache page. If I'm reading this right, Groundspeak has elevated the degree of permission for caches on private property from adequate to explicit. However, at least locally, this bit of the guidelines is seemingly ignored. In checking a random sample of caches that I know are on private property, I don't see a single one that has a permission statement on the cache page.

 

If Groundspeak wanted to be proactive to the types of caches that seem to cause the most problems, they would enforce that section of the guidelines.

[+Sol seaker]

The original question in this thread was:

 

If Groundspeak were to archive (or never publish in the first place) certain caches they deemed to be unacceptably dangerous, then why would this make them legally liable for the safety of all active caches?

 

I provided an answer in post #43.

 

As far as I can tell, every post in this thread other than those is off-topic. People aren't answering the question "why would this make them legally liable?" Instead, people are answering that they don't need GS to make this judgment call for them. And the OP is playing along and arguing that GS should judge the safety of caches.

 

If that's what this thread is about, it should be merged with one of the numerous other threads on this topic. Otherwise, the thread should be closed as it has drifted far off the topic suggested in the thread title and the original post.

It was the OP's reply to that post that changed the topic of the thread.

 

He argues that Groundspeak would not be reviewing caches for all safety concerns and the disclaimer would still appear on each page. Instead he wants guidelines to prohibit caches with certain type of dangers (which he refers to as non-obvious). Clearly the reviewers would not be able to guarentee the all caches with these non-obvious dangers would be detected prior to publishing and that after publishing it would depend on cachers who find such non-obvious dangers reporting these. He sees this as no different that a no bury guideline or an adequate permission guideline. Since any guideline is imperfect in its implementation, geocachers should still use caution is hunting all caches. He is more concerned with the cachers who are going to be careless anyhow. If there are fewer dangerous caches (especially one where a cacher might not be expecting danger) there is less chance of accident. And shouldn't Groundspeak be interested is reducing Geocaching accidents regardless of whether or not they are liable for them?

 

That basically changes the topic to what is his definition of non-obvious dangers and how does he expect reviewers to detect them; and perhaps a discussion as to whether or not Grounspeak does have any interest in preventing accidents by reducing the number of caches in which the OP perceives risks.

 

So caches with obvious danger are okay, but caches with hidden dangers are not??

 

So the cache that is located in an old nuclear reactor core is fine, but the cache I slipped on that slick log right next to a public paved trail is not okay?? That was definitely a hidden danger.

 

For some reason this is still not making sense to me, but please don't try to explain it.

I just stopped in for the (as someone put it) "train wreck" aspect here.

 

 

IBTL

[knowschad]

IBTL

Really?

 

ME TOO!

[+CanadianRockies]

The original question in this thread was:

 

If Groundspeak were to archive (or never publish in the first place) certain caches they deemed to be unacceptably dangerous, then why would this make them legally liable for the safety of all active caches?

I provided an answer in post #43.

 

As far as I can tell, every post in this thread other than those is off-topic. People aren't answering the question "why would this make them legally liable?" Instead, people are answering that they don't need GS to make this judgment call for them. And the OP is playing along and arguing that GS should judge the safety of caches.

I did a quick scan of the first 50 posts, and I think the following ones at least touch on the issues I raised in my original post: 1 (obviously), 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 25, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, and 45. In my haste, I might have overlooked some other relevant posts as well.

 

I included your Post #43 because you at least attempted to address the issues I originally raised, even though you really didn't.

 

Your post discussed what would happen if Groundspeak decided to guarantee or warrant the safety of its active caches. You noted that, if Groundspeak decided to do so, they would incur certain legal liabilities.

 

Please note, however, that the scenario you offered is very different from the original question I raised, which is what would happen if Groundspeak archived or declined to publish certain caches that they deemed to be unacceptably dangerous. Groundspeak's Terms of Use agreement and disclaimers make it clear that they do not guarantee or warrant the safety of its active caches, even if they archive and refuse to publish certain other caches.

Edited June 30, 2011 by CanadianRockies

[+CanadianRockies]

So caches with obvious danger are okay, but caches with hidden dangers are not??

In a nutshell, yes.

 

If a cache requires rock climbing and the dangers are obvious to a reasonable person, then I think that should be okay. If a cache is located near hidden, live electrical wires, then I think that should not be okay.

 

So the cache that is located in an old nuclear reactor core is fine, but the cache I slipped on that slick log right next to a public paved trail is not okay?? That was definitely a hidden danger.

If the cache in the old nuclear reactor core has appropriate warnings on its listing page, then I think that should be okay.

 

As for your unfortunate accident on the slick log, I was sorry to hear about your experience. But I don't believe Groundspeak reviewers generally should decline to publish these types of caches. For two reasons.

 

First, reviewers usually will be unaware of hidden dangers that might exist for caches submitted for publication. I don't expect them to visually inspect every proposed cache. Also, risks can vary from day to day or even minute to minute. If reviewers cannot reasonably foresee these hidden risks, then I don't think they should veto a cache for safety reasons.

 

Second, it's not clear to me why a slick log would pose a hidden danger. I wasn't there, so I don't know all the details. But slick logs are, by definition, slippery logs. When one stands on slippery logs, it seems to me that one might sometimes slip and fall. In certain situations, one might decide that this is a risk that's worth taking, but the possible consequences shouldn't come as a surprise. So, I think slick logs fall into the same category as rock climbing: obvious dangers.

Edited June 30, 2011 by CanadianRockies

[knowschad]

But slick logs are, by definition, slippery logs. When one stands on slippery logs, it seems to me that one might sometimes slip and fall. In certain situations, one might decide that this is a risk that's worth taking, but the possible consequences shouldn't come as a surprise. So, I think slick logs fall into the same category as rock climbing: obvious dangers.

Then, please explain again about blind curves?

[+kpanko]

I am also curious to know the answer to the original question, which was: Is it true that Groundspeak can decrease their legal liability by having a policy of not reviewing cache listings for safety?

 

I suspect that the answer is "yes, but not completely."

 

As with many things in life, it is not a black and white situation. This is why we hire lawyers.

[+GeoGeeBee]

I am also curious to know the answer to the original question, which was: Is it true that Groundspeak can decrease their legal liability by having a policy of not reviewing cache listings for safety?

 

I suspect that the answer is "yes, but not completely."

 

As with many things in life, it is not a black and white situation. This is why we hire lawyers.

 

And my guess is that unless you hire a lawyer you aren't going to get an answer to this question.

[+CanadianRockies]

I am also curious to know the answer to the original question, which was: Is it true that Groundspeak can decrease their legal liability by having a policy of not reviewing cache listings for safety?

 

I suspect that the answer is "yes, but not completely."

When Toyota voluntarily recalled more than 82,000 hybrid SUVs in the United States due to safety issues, did that increase their liability for all their other vehicles? Do you think they're guaranteeing all non-recalled Toyota vehicles are perfectly safe?

Edited June 30, 2011 by CanadianRockies

[+GeoGeeBee]

I am also curious to know the answer to the original question, which was: Is it true that Groundspeak can decrease their legal liability by having a policy of not reviewing cache listings for safety?

 

I suspect that the answer is "yes, but not completely."

When Toyota voluntarily recalled more than 82,000 hybrid SUVs in the United States due to safety issues, did that increase their liability for all their other vehicles? Do you think they're guaranteeing all non-recalled Toyota vehicles are perfectly safe?

No, it didn't increase their liability. But their liability was already considerable, to begin with.

 

But that's beside the point, as Toyota actually builds and sells automobiles. That means we're talking about product liability. Groundspeak doesn't build geocaches.

 

YOU are the manufacturer of your geocache hides. Groundspeak is a publisher. The place to look for related case law would be in publishing. How much liability does a publisher have when the publish dangerous information? The Good Housekeeping case previously cited is directly relevant.

 

To a certain extent, we don't know Groundspeak's liability. There is NO directly relevant case law, as what Groundspeak does is not exactly like what anyone else does. GS's liability, and the effectiveness of whatever efforts they make to shield themselves from liability, hasn't been tested.

 

We'll only really know the answer after:

1 - someone sues Groundspeak because they were injured seeking a dangerous cache;

 

2 - they win the suit;

 

3 - the verdict is either upheld or denied on appeal.

 

Until all of that happens, there is really no definitive answer.

 

Reminder: I Am NOT a Lawyer!

[+kpanko]

But that's beside the point, as Toyota actually builds and sells automobiles. That means we're talking about product liability. Groundspeak doesn't build geocaches.

Yes, what he said.

[+CanadianRockies]

The Good Housekeeping case previously cited is directly relevant.... There is NO directly relevant case law, as what Groundspeak does is not exactly like what anyone else does.

 

... Reminder: I Am NOT a Lawyer!

With contradictions like that, I can understand why you aren't a lawyer.

 

In the Good Housekeeping case, footnote 49 explained:

 

The “Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval” carried with it the following certification: “We have satisfied ourselves the products and services advertised in Good Housekeeping are good ones and the advertising claims made for them in our magazine are truthful.”

Groundspeak offers no such certification for the caches it publishes. Indeed, in its Terms of Use agreement, Groundspeak makes it clear that it does not certify the safety of the caches it publishes:

 

You assume all risks arising in connection with seeking a cache or any other related activity.

And in its disclaimer:

 

In no way shall Groundspeak Inc. nor any agent, officer, employee or volunteer administrator of Groundspeak Inc., be liable for any direct, indirect, punitive, or consequential damages arising out of, or in any way connected with the use of this website or use of the information contained within.

A legal decision based on the fact that a company went out of its way to certify the accuracy of advertising claims is not relevant to a company like Groundspeak.

Edited June 30, 2011 by CanadianRockies

[+CanadianRockies]

But that's beside the point, as Toyota actually builds and sells automobiles. That means we're talking about product liability. Groundspeak doesn't build geocaches.

Yes, what he said.

Groundspeak doesn't build the geocaches, and users agree to Groundspeak's Terms of Use and disclaimers. So why would Groundspeak be held liable for the safety of the caches (other than instances of gross negligence)?

[+GeoGeeBee]

But that's beside the point, as Toyota actually builds and sells automobiles. That means we're talking about product liability. Groundspeak doesn't build geocaches.

Yes, what he said.

Groundspeak doesn't build the geocaches, and users agree to Groundspeak's Terms of Use and disclaimers. So why would Groundspeak be held liable for the safety of the caches (other than instances of gross negligence)?

Because as soon as they say "we aren't going to publish this cache as it is too dangerous," they imply that "all of the caches we DID publish are NOT too dangerous."

 

Yes, I know there's a logical fallacy there. But would you be willing to bet your bank account that you could make a jury understand that?

[+CanadianRockies]

Groundspeak doesn't build the geocaches, and users agree to Groundspeak's Terms of Use and disclaimers. So why would Groundspeak be held liable for the safety of the caches (other than instances of gross negligence)?

Because as soon as they say "we aren't going to publish this cache as it is too dangerous," they imply that "all of the caches we DID publish are NOT too dangerous."

 

Yes, I know there's a logical fallacy there. But would you be willing to bet your bank account that you could make a jury understand that?

If you understand the logical fallacy, then, yes, I'd be willing to bet that a jury would, too.

[+tozainamboku]

A legal decision based on the fact that a company went out of its way to certify the accuracy of advertising claims is not relevant to a company like Groundspeak.

But you are asking Groundspeak (or its agents the volunteer reviewers) to go out of their way to certify that cache are no in places that are non-obvious but knowably unsafe. If you could define what you mean by non-obvious and indicate how a reviewer would know that this location is unsafe then perhaps Grounspeak would not be liable as was Good Housekeeping. But some lawyer will undoubtly argue that where his client was injured had non-obvious danger and that the reviewer should have known before publishing.

 

I happen to agree that if Groundspeak wanted to ban caches on electrical boxes, in parking lots, or in guardrails along the sides of busy roads, they could without worrying about being liable if a cache is in a tree, on a cliff, or in an alligator infested swamp. In general, the places you want to ban are likely ones where the cache was placed without permission. A better tack to get rid of these caches would be to argue that reviewers should require more evidence of permission for these caches than they currently do. There are already a number of locations where the reviewers are instructed to ask about permission if the cache owner doesn't state expilicitly in the description or a reviewer not (e.g. schools and military bases). Put together a list of places you think should be subject to this scrutiny and post in the feedback site. There is no reason to argue esoteric legal theories if your goal is simply to reduce the potential for problems at these places.

[+kpanko]

Because as soon as they say "we aren't going to publish this cache as it is too dangerous," they imply that "all of the caches we DID publish are NOT too dangerous."

 

Yes, I know there's a logical fallacy there. But would you be willing to bet your bank account that you could make a jury understand that?

I would not try to explain the concept of logical fallacies, but it's pretty easy to understand that the policy is not to evaluate every cache for safety, as a matter of general course. If just ONE or a small number were evaluated, that does not mean the other 999,999 caches were also evaluated and found to be safe and appropriate.

 

It seems that this line of reasoning would lead to a situation where Groundspeak (or their appointed reviewers) KNOWS that a cache is dangerous, they KNOW there are no warnings about the danger, and yet they MUST publish the listing because they have a policy PREVENTING them from evaluating the safety. That is ridiculous, and I believe they would have a liability if it can be proved in a courtroom that they KNEW of the danger and NEGLECTED to warn people.

 

Therefore, as a general policy, the caches are not reviewed for safety, and might be dangerous. But, if a cache page had a reviewer note attached saying "This cache is in an area with land mines, is that okay?" the reviewer would not have to say "That's okay, we don't evaluate for safety, so you don't need to bother adding a warning to the cache description or anything. Consider it published!"

Edited June 30, 2011 by kpanko

[+kpanko]

"This cache is in an area with land mines, is that okay?"

Indeed it is.

[Clan Riffster]

Yes, I know there's a logical fallacy there.

Anyone who has spent more than 30 seconds evaluating the American civil court system knows that logic is something that almost never makes an appearance. There are even websites dedicated to pointing out lawsuits that simply make no sense, and yet result in the plaintiffs walking away with bulging pockets. Our civil court system is so uniquely perverse that, if someone were to opine that America is the only country where stupid people are rewarded financially, I'm not sure I could disagree. From Canadian Rockies stance, I can only assume that Canada's civil court system works a lot better than ours. Either that, or he is very naive. He seems too well versed in expessing his thoughts through the written word to be naive, though.

[mresoteric]

As for your unfortunate accident on the slick log, I was sorry to hear about your experience. But I don't believe Groundspeak reviewers generally should decline to publish these types of caches. For two reasons.

 

First, reviewers usually will be unaware of hidden dangers that might exist for caches submitted for publication. I don't expect them to visually inspect every proposed cache. Also, risks can vary from day to day or even minute to minute. If reviewers cannot reasonably foresee these hidden risks, then I don't think they should veto a cache for safety reasons.

 

I am glad to see you acknowledge that reviewers usually will be unaware of hidden dangers that might exist for caches and that you don't believe Groundspeak reviewers generally should decline to publish those types of caches.

 

However, you continue to say things like this:

 

Please note, however, that the scenario you offered is very different from the original question I raised, which is what would happen if Groundspeak archived or declined to publish certain caches that they deemed to be unacceptably dangerous.

 

Since you now acknowledge the difficulty for reviewers knowing non-obvious dangers prior to publication, maybe we can stick to what you think they should do when alerted after the fact by finders.