Judging danger means legal liability?

[mresoteric]

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?

 

Something is truly wrong because I agree with you that blind curves are by definition blind cures and when one approaches a blind curve it seems that one might sometimes expect to find hidden dangers. In most situations, one might decide that this is a risk that's worth taking, but the possible consequences shouldn't come as a surprise. So we think blind curves fall into the same category as rock climbing: obvious dangers.

[mresoteric]

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.

 

I'm afraid hiring a lawyer is the only way you would get a proper answer. And if you hired 2 of them you would probably get 2 different answers.

 

That would probably be interesting to watch though.

[mresoteric]

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?

 

They didn't have much choice since they were already liable for the ones they recalled. Not even in the same ballpark.

[mresoteric]

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.

 

You did see the part where she said there was NO relevant case law as no one does what Groundspeak does? All she was saying is that the only relevant case law that has been presented was the Good Housekeeping one and even it isn't relevant. I think at this point you just want to argue.

[mresoteric]

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.

 

The vast majority of of potential jurors out there would not necessarily get it. That is my opinion and I don't have one bit of proof to back it up. I just know if I were Groundspeak I would not bet my bank account on it.

[mresoteric]

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 expressing his thoughts through the written word to be naive, though.

 

The problem with our court system is that if a company with big enough pockets is sued and the lawyers can show how evil they are and how poor the plaintiffs are that the Robin Hoods of the world are much too eager to redistribute the wealth. All they need is a decent excuse to do so. And that is why a lot of companies go ahead and settle. In a lot of situations 5 or 10 grand is cheap compared to what a jury might choose to award if the lawyers can make the defendant look bad enough. They don't really have to prove liability as much as show how the company is too big and needs to give back a little.

[Clan Riffster]

The problem with our court system is that if a company with big enough pockets is sued and the lawyers can show how evil they are and how poor the plaintiffs are that the Robin Hoods of the world are much too eager to redistribute the wealth. They don't really have to prove liability as much as show how the company is too big and needs to give back a little.

You're preaching to the choir, Brother.

[knowschad]

The problem with our court system is that if a company with big enough pockets is sued and the lawyers can show how evil they are and how poor the plaintiffs are that the Robin Hoods of the world are much too eager to redistribute the wealth. They don't really have to prove liability as much as show how the company is too big and needs to give back a little.

You're preaching to the choir, Brother.

 

[+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.

You did see the part where she said there was NO relevant case law as no one does what Groundspeak does?

Yes, I did. It was two sentences after she said, "The Good Housekeeping case previously cited is directly relevant." The two sentences formed the contradiction I referred to, above.

 

Just because "what Groundspeak does is not exactly like what anyone else does" doesn't mean there isn't any relevant case law. Laws and legal principles generally are meant to be applied relatively broadly rather than to individual companies.

 

For example, if Good Housekeeping was found to be grossly negligent for acting with "conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm," then that case might well be cited as relevant case law and applied to Groundspeak if it also acted with conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm.

 

The two companies don't have to be in the exact same business. The two grossly negligent actions don't have to be exactly the same actions, either. What's relevent for case law is the broader legal principle of whether the people acted with conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm.

 

All she was saying is that the only relevant case law that has been presented was the Good Housekeeping one and even it isn't relevant.

You don't see the contraction in that statement? If GBB didn't think the case was relevent, then why did she link to it and explain why she felt it could apply to Groundspeak in her Post #43. And why would she claim "The Good Housekeeping case previously cited is directly relevant" in the post quoted above (Post #140)? Why bring up an irrelevant case at all?

[+GeoGeeBee]

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.

You did see the part where she said there was NO relevant case law as no one does what Groundspeak does?

Yes, I did. It was two sentences after she said, "The Good Housekeeping case previously cited is directly relevant." The two sentences formed the contradiction I referred to, above.

 

Just because "what Groundspeak does is not exactly like what anyone else does" doesn't mean there isn't any relevant case law. Laws and legal principles generally are meant to be applied relatively broadly rather than to individual companies.

 

For example, if Good Housekeeping was found to be grossly negligent for acting with "conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm," then that case might well be cited as relevant case law and applied to Groundspeak if it also acted with conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm.

 

The two companies don't have to be in the exact same business. The two grossly negligent actions don't have to be exactly the same actions, either. What's relevent for case law is the broader legal principle of whether the people acted with conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm.

 

All she was saying is that the only relevant case law that has been presented was the Good Housekeeping one and even it isn't relevant.

You don't see the contraction in that statement? If GBB didn't think the case was relevent, then why did she link to it and explain why she felt it could apply to Groundspeak in her Post #43. And why would she claim "The Good Housekeeping case previously cited is directly relevant" in the post quoted above (Post #140)? Why bring up an irrelevant case at all?

It's more closely related than anything else I could find, as Groundspeak is a publisher, and it's a case relating to a publisher having responsibility for a defective product that they didn't manufacture.

 

I also cited, earlier in the thread, an article in a legal journal concerning publisher's liability for publishing dangerous information. That article probably has several relevant cases, but I'm not going to pay $12 to find out.

 

Anybody here with a Lexis subscription want to check it out?

[+sbell111]

What exactly is your current position?

 

Do you still feel that your blind curve example is one of an unforeseeable danger that reviewers should not allow?

 

If you do agree that blind curves have an inherent, known danger, do you still believe that these caches should not be listed? If so, is your position now that caches with foreseeable dangers, such as rock climbing or scuba caches should not be listed?

 

If you no longer believe that 'blind curve' caches should no longer be listed because they are not an unforeseeable danger, can you give us an example of a cache that you think a reviewer should not list? (Not a specific actual, listed cache, just a hypothetical cache)

Edited July 1, 2011 by sbell111

[mresoteric]

All she was saying is that the only relevant case law that has been presented was the Good Housekeeping one and even it isn't relevant.

You don't see the contraction in that statement? If GBB didn't think the case was relevent, then why did she link to it and explain why she felt it could apply to Groundspeak in her Post #43. And why would she claim "The Good Housekeeping case previously cited is directly relevant" in the post quoted above (Post #140)? Why bring up an irrelevant case at all?

It's more closely related than anything else I could find, as Groundspeak is a publisher, and it's a case relating to a publisher having responsibility for a defective product that they didn't manufacture.

 

I also cited, earlier in the thread, an article in a legal journal concerning publisher's liability for publishing dangerous information. That article probably has several relevant cases, but I'm not going to pay $12 to find out.

 

Anybody here with a Lexis subscription want to check it out?

 

Some of us understood what you were saying.

[+CanadianRockies]

All she was saying is that the only relevant case law that has been presented was the Good Housekeeping one and even it isn't relevant.

You don't see the contraction in that statement? If GBB didn't think the case was relevent, then why did she link to it and explain why she felt it could apply to Groundspeak in her Post #43. And why would she claim "The Good Housekeeping case previously cited is directly relevant" in the post quoted above (Post #140)? Why bring up an irrelevant case at all?

It's more closely related than anything else I could find, as Groundspeak is a publisher, and it's a case relating to a publisher having responsibility for a defective product that they didn't manufacture.

If it's the most closely related thing you could find, then just say that. It's incorrect to describe the case as being "directly relevant" when it's not even close to being relevant. Better yet, why not simply ignore an irrelevant case?

[mresoteric]

All she was saying is that the only relevant case law that has been presented was the Good Housekeeping one and even it isn't relevant.

You don't see the contraction in that statement? If GBB didn't think the case was relevent, then why did she link to it and explain why she felt it could apply to Groundspeak in her Post #43. And why would she claim "The Good Housekeeping case previously cited is directly relevant" in the post quoted above (Post #140)? Why bring up an irrelevant case at all?

It's more closely related than anything else I could find, as Groundspeak is a publisher, and it's a case relating to a publisher having responsibility for a defective product that they didn't manufacture.

If it's the most closely related thing you could find, then just say that. It's incorrect to describe the case as being "directly relevant" when it's not even close to being relevant. Better yet, why not simply ignore an irrelevant case?

 

Better yet why not just ignore this thread. It is clear that nothing short of a Supreme Court Justice is going to satisfy you.

 

You keep calling for citations while continuing to present a moving target of a topic.

 

It's been pointed out that Groundspeak is a rather unique company with a rather unique service. You will be hard pressed to find completely relevant case law until someone decides to sue Groundspeak.

 

There's an idea. Why not bring a suit against them. Then we can finally get a definitive answer.

[+CanadianRockies]

You keep calling for citations while continuing to present a moving target of a topic.

I'm still waiting for someone to provide a citation or link for the legal principle that supports the claim I quoted in my original post:

 

Once Groundspeak starts judging which caches are dangerous it puts them in the position of being liable for the caches left not archived because they didn't archive it due to danger.

 

It's been pointed out that Groundspeak is a rather unique company with a rather unique service. You will be hard pressed to find completely relevant case law until someone decides to sue Groundspeak.

It's been pointed out that legal principles generally apply relatively broadly rather than to individual companies:

 

Just because "what Groundspeak does is not exactly like what anyone else does" doesn't mean there isn't any relevant case law. Laws and legal principles generally are meant to be applied relatively broadly rather than to individual companies.

 

For example, if Good Housekeeping was found to be grossly negligent for acting with "conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm," then that case might well be cited as relevant case law and applied to Groundspeak if it also acted with conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm.

 

The two companies don't have to be in the exact same business. The two grossly negligent actions don't have to be exactly the same actions, either. What's relevent for case law is the broader legal principle of whether the people acted with conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm.

[Clan Riffster]

I'm still waiting for someone to provide a citation or link for the legal principle that supports the claim I quoted in my original post

While continuing your refusal to provide relevant citations and/or links that disprove it.

Not sure why you picked this particular issue for a Jihad, but good luck with it.

[+Too Tall John]

It's been pointed out that legal principles generally apply relatively broadly rather than to individual companies:

So, basically, what you're saying is "What I say is true, and it's true because I backed it up with something else I said."

 

Maybe if you quoted someone other than yourself to support your argument it'd hold more water.

[+CanadianRockies]

So, basically, what you're saying is "What I say is true, and it's true because I backed it up with something else I said."

I'm sorry you found this exchange to be confusing.

 

mresoteric noted that a point had been made in this discussion.

It's been pointed out that Groundspeak is a rather unique company with a rather unique service. You will be hard pressed to find completely relevant case law until someone decides to sue Groundspeak.

Apparently, he had overlooked my response, so I explained that the point had already been rebutted. I then quoted my rebuttal for him so that he wouldn't have to find the previous post.

It's been pointed out that legal principles generally apply relatively broadly rather than to individual companies:

 

Just because "what Groundspeak does is not exactly like what anyone else does" doesn't mean there isn't any relevant case law. Laws and legal principles generally are meant to be applied relatively broadly rather than to individual companies.

 

For example, if Good Housekeeping was found to be grossly negligent for acting with "conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm," then that case might well be cited as relevant case law and applied to Groundspeak if it also acted with conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm.

 

The two companies don't have to be in the exact same business. The two grossly negligent actions don't have to be exactly the same actions, either. What's relevent for case law is the broader legal principle of whether the people acted with conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm.

[knowschad]

You keep calling for citations while continuing to present a moving target of a topic.

I'm still waiting for someone to provide a citation or link for the legal principle that supports the claim I quoted in my original post:

Oh, good grief, Charlie Brown. Let it go, already, OK? We were all wrong, you were right.

 

Here's a link to a site that may bring you more satisfaction than we are able to: http://www.convinceme.net/

Edited July 2, 2011 by knowschad

[+CanadianRockies]

Let it go, already, OK?

Here's an idea. If you're tired with this discussion, then don't read this thread any more. Those of us who wish to continue the discussion will. Those who don't want to can ignore it if they wish. Win/win.

[+kpanko]

 

I'm still waiting for someone to provide a citation or link for the legal principle that supports the claim I quoted in my original post:

 

Once Groundspeak starts judging which caches are dangerous it puts them in the position of being liable for the caches left not archived because they didn't archive it due to danger.

 

There is a difference between judging one or two caches, and judging all of them as a matter of general policy.

 

The general policy of not endorsing does avoid the "Good Housekeeping Seal" liability. But, it is still necessary to judge safety in special situations, and therefore not publishing, or archiving, a few caches may sometimes be a good idea. This does not mean that the general policy has changed.

 

This is my opinion, I am not a lawyer, I cannot site anything that backs me up.

[knowschad]

Let it go, already, OK?

Here's an idea. If you're tired with this discussion, then don't read this thread any more. Those of us who wish to continue the discussion will. Those who don't want to can ignore it if they wish. Win/win.

 

There is a discussion? Sorry, I guess I missed it.

[+DanOCan]

I'm still not clear on how Groundspeak reviewers are supposed to know about non-obvious dangers if those dangers are so non-obvious that even the cachers seeking the cache don't know they exist. I certainly can't see any way for that to happen pre-publication so it would have to happen after the cache has been published and someone reports an issue.

 

OK, so someone went to look for the cache and reported it. That means they obviously discovered the non-obvious danger during the course of their hunt. That must mean the non-obvious danger is pretty obvious, right?

 

Since we're all OK with obvious dangers, there is no reason to archive any cache for danger reasons alone. Problem solved.

[+kpanko]

 

OK, so someone went to look for the cache and reported it. That means they obviously discovered the non-obvious danger during the course of their hunt. That must mean the non-obvious danger is pretty obvious, right?

 

 

No, sometimes a danger is not obvious to everybody, but some people can recognize it. E.g., radiation that is invisible to the naked eye, or land mines.

[+CanadianRockies]

I'm still not clear on how Groundspeak reviewers are supposed to know about non-obvious dangers if those dangers are so non-obvious that even the cachers seeking the cache don't know they exist. I certainly can't see any way for that to happen pre-publication so it would have to happen after the cache has been published and someone reports an issue.

From a previous post:

 

Here's a scenario that seems fairly clear to me. Suppose a geocacher hides a cache in a very radioactive area. The Groundspeak reviewer is familiar with this area and asks the cache owner to place warnings on the listing page. The cache owner refuses. Many geocachers, especially non-locals, might be unaware of the radioactivity at that location. Most geocachers don't carry Geiger counters with them. Should the reviewer publish this cache?

 

OK, so someone went to look for the cache and reported it. That means they obviously discovered the non-obvious danger during the course of their hunt. That must mean the non-obvious danger is pretty obvious, right?

Suppose someone gets shocked and severely burned while looking under a lamppost skirt whose base carries a strong electrical current due to exposed wires. I think this situation would be non-obvious to many reasonable people, and, if this incident were to be reported to Groundspeak, then I think they should immediately archive it until the cache owner can assure them about its safety.

 

I think its the right thing to do. I also wouldn't be surprised if publishing or refusing to archive the caches in these scenarios would constitute gross negligence on the part of Groundspeak.

[+DanOCan]

The thing that bothers me with the radiation scenario is that it involves a hypothetical cache owner who isn't willing to share with seekers but would be willing to tell a reviewer...that just seems to be so implausible I'm not sure how to respond. It's hard to apply any rule when you take a situation to either extreme.

 

As for the malfunctioning lamp post causing a burn? I imagine the person who burned themselves would make mention of it in their log. At that point the danger is exposed to anyone willing to look at the cache page. If seekers aren't doing their research before seeking caches I don't think that's a Groundspeak issue.

 

Hey, don't get me wrong. Archiving (or even disabling) these caches is the nice thing to do, but I still think having Groundspeak evaluate caches based on dangers would introduce a lot more problems than it would solve.

[+CanadianRockies]

The thing that bothers me with the radiation scenario is that it involves a hypothetical cache owner who isn't willing to share with seekers but would be willing to tell a reviewer...that just seems to be so implausible I'm not sure how to respond. It's hard to apply any rule when you take a situation to either extreme.

If you reread the scenario, you'll see there is no mention of the cache owner telling the reviewer about the radiation hazards. The assumption is that the reviewer is familiar with the area. Perhaps they live in the region.

 

As for the malfunctioning lamp post causing a burn? I imagine the person who burned themselves would make mention of it in their log. At that point the danger is exposed to anyone willing to look at the cache page. If seekers aren't doing their research before seeking caches I don't think that's a Groundspeak issue.

What about the many reasonable geocachers who don't read every log for every cache they visit, especially for simple caches like lamppost skirts?

 

It's not just about doing the nice thing. At some point, it's also about avoiding liability for gross negligence. I certainly hope you aren't advocating that Groundspeak reviewers should act with gross negligence.

[+kpanko]

Hey, don't get me wrong. Archiving (or even disabling) these caches is the nice thing to do, but I still think having Groundspeak evaluate caches based on dangers would introduce a lot more problems than it would solve.

I think we all agree for the most part.

[+DanOCan]

What about the many reasonable geocachers who don't read every log for every cache they visit, especially for simple caches like lamppost skirts?

 

We need JohnnyGeo here to discuss how caches hidden on or near electrical equipment are never "simple". http://johnnygeo.com/

 

If someone doesn't read about the cache before seeking it then it really is caveat emptor. If someone doesn't take the time to educate themselves about the local hazards they have no one to blame but themselves.

 

I certainly hope you aren't advocating that Groundspeak reviewers should act with gross negligence.

 

Let's go back to the radiation example. If anyone is guilty of gross negligence, it would be the land manager who is in charge of a dangerous radioactive area and did not post adequate signage to warn people to stay out of the area or to only approach while wearing proper PPE. It would me the land manager who was grossly negligent for granting permission for the geocache in the first place.

 

Ah well. I think we're the only people left in this topic now and we can always discuss it in person at a pizza and beer night. Cheers!

[+CanadianRockies]

I certainly hope you aren't advocating that Groundspeak reviewers should act with gross negligence.

Let's go back to the radiation example. If anyone is guilty of gross negligence, it would be the land manager who is in charge of a dangerous radioactive area and did not post adequate signage to warn people to stay out of the area or to only approach while wearing proper PPE. It would e the land manager who was grossly negligent for granting permission for the geocache in the first place.

I suspect the land manager would indeed be held grossly negligent in the scenario I laid out. I also suspect the cache owner and Groundspeak reviewer also might be held grossly negligent as well. For gross negligence, more than one person can be responsible.

 

Negligence may be a legal cause of damage even though it operates in combination with the act of another, a natural cause, or some other cause if the other cause occurs at the same time as the negligence and if the negligence contributes substantially to producing such damage.

[+Too Tall John]

So, basically, what you're saying is "What I say is true, and it's true because I backed it up with something else I said."

I'm sorry you found this exchange to be confusing.

I fully understood what you were doing. You were pointing at an unsubstantiated claim, made earlier by you, as the fact to back up what you were saying.

 

And now, you're trying to claim that I'm confused about it to cover the fact that I just pointed out a fallacy in your argument.

[+Too Tall John]

I certainly hope you aren't advocating that Groundspeak reviewers should act with gross negligence.

Let's go back to the radiation example. If anyone is guilty of gross negligence, it would be the land manager who is in charge of a dangerous radioactive area and did not post adequate signage to warn people to stay out of the area or to only approach while wearing proper PPE. It would e the land manager who was grossly negligent for granting permission for the geocache in the first place.

I suspect the land manager would indeed be held grossly negligent in the scenario I laid out. I also suspect the cache owner and Groundspeak reviewer also might be held grossly negligent as well. For gross negligence, more than one person can be responsible.

How is it, again, that the reviewer and Groundspeak would be held responsible? If this hypothetically unposted radioactive suckhole of doom actually existed, how does the reviewer know of it's existence? I bet if I went around my state and found a dozen spots with serious hidden dangers, then asked the reviewers in the area what they thought of those spots (not mentioning the dangers) they would probably be unaware of those dangers. Asking them to know about potential dangers over their review area is ridiculous.

[knowschad]

I certainly hope you aren't advocating that Groundspeak reviewers should act with gross negligence.

Let's go back to the radiation example. If anyone is guilty of gross negligence, it would be the land manager who is in charge of a dangerous radioactive area and did not post adequate signage to warn people to stay out of the area or to only approach while wearing proper PPE. It would e the land manager who was grossly negligent for granting permission for the geocache in the first place.

I suspect the land manager would indeed be held grossly negligent in the scenario I laid out. I also suspect the cache owner and Groundspeak reviewer also might be held grossly negligent as well. For gross negligence, more than one person can be responsible.

 

Negligence may be a legal cause of damage even though it operates in combination with the act of another, a natural cause, or some other cause if the other cause occurs at the same time as the negligence and if the negligence contributes substantially to producing such damage.

 

I can only speak for myself, but I sure wish that you would simply state what it is that you want to say instead of playing 20 questions with us. What is your point? Bottom line. I don't mean what is your next argument... I mean... what would you like to see come out of this discussion.

[+Sol seaker]

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?

 

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.

 

What they said.

 

 

and by the way, Groundspeak has archived caches because the locals complained about the danger.

I'm pretty sure it was Groundspeak anyway. It was a cache in an intersection, on one of the little islands. This was last year sometime I think. Anyway, it's gone now. It was in Canada.

 

The log I slipped on was not obviously slippery or I certainly would not have stepped on it. Not all logs are slippery, this log didn't look slippery, and few are as slippery as this one was.

 

And Yes, by Toyota recalling those cars, it is saying the rest are safe. That's why the recall. they didn't do the recall for their health, but because they have to have safe cars. They are required to do that with cars. They've got to maintain a certain safety level. If they come across a problem where someone gets injured from their cars, it goes through court and they pay through the nose. Then those similar cars are recalled to fix the problem. Most recalls come from cases that have gone through court and the car company has paid out the big bucks.

[+CanadianRockies]

Here's a scenario that seems fairly clear to me. Suppose a geocacher hides a cache in a very radioactive area. The Groundspeak reviewer is familiar with this area and asks the cache owner to place warnings on the listing page. The cache owner refuses. Many geocachers, especially non-locals, might be unaware of the radioactivity at that location. Most geocachers don't carry Geiger counters with them. Should the reviewer publish this cache?

I certainly hope you aren't advocating that Groundspeak reviewers should act with gross negligence.

Let's go back to the radiation example. If anyone is guilty of gross negligence, it would be the land manager who is in charge of a dangerous radioactive area and did not post adequate signage to warn people to stay out of the area or to only approach while wearing proper PPE. It would e the land manager who was grossly negligent for granting permission for the geocache in the first place.

I suspect the land manager would indeed be held grossly negligent in the scenario I laid out. I also suspect the cache owner and Groundspeak reviewer also might be held grossly negligent as well. For gross negligence, more than one person can be responsible.

How is it, again, that the reviewer and Groundspeak would be held responsible?

Because they knew that the cache was likely to cause foreseeable grave harm but chose to publish the cache anyway.

 

If this hypothetically unposted radioactive suckhole of doom actually existed, how does the reviewer know of it's existence?

Because, in this hypothetical scenario, the cache owner submitted the cache to Groundspeak for publication and it was forwarded to the appropriate reviewer.

 

I bet if I went around my state and found a dozen spots with serious hidden dangers, then asked the reviewers in the area what they thought of those spots (not mentioning the dangers) they would probably be unaware of those dangers. Asking them to know about potential dangers over their review area is ridiculous.

Nobody in this discussion has asked reviewers to know about all potential dangers over their review area. As you noted, that would be ridiculous. What isn't ridiculous is asking reviewers to consider dangers of which they are aware, especially when ignoring those dangers could make them liable for gross negligence.

[+CanadianRockies]

and by the way, Groundspeak has archived caches because the locals complained about the danger.

I'm pretty sure it was Groundspeak anyway. It was a cache in an intersection, on one of the little islands. This was last year sometime I think. Anyway, it's gone now. It was in Canada.

I'm pleased to learn that Groundspeak does consider certain dangers when deciding if a cache should be archived. Unless the locals who complained were law enforcement or land managers, then I think this action will surprise some forum readers. It has been alleged here that danger is not sufficient grounds to cause Groundspeak to archive a cache or refuse to publish it.

 

And Yes, by Toyota recalling those cars, it is saying the rest are safe. That's why the recall. they didn't do the recall for their health, but because they have to have safe cars. They are required to do that with cars. They've got to maintain a certain safety level. If they come across a problem where someone gets injured from their cars, it goes through court and they pay through the nose. Then those similar cars are recalled to fix the problem. Most recalls come from cases that have gone through court and the car company has paid out the big bucks.

I think we're partly in agreement here. If Toyota knew some defective vehicles were likely to cause foreseeable harm and did nothing about it, then they would be grossly negligent. But if they recall those vehicles, then I don't believe they are saying all the rest of their vehicles are perfectly safe. A tire still could blow, causing a driver to lose control of their vehicle and crash. Not many moving vehicles are safe.

[+kpanko]

It has been alleged here that danger is not sufficient grounds to cause Groundspeak to archive a cache or refuse to publish it.

I can back you up on that -- it seems to come up when there is a question about a cache being "too close" to railroad tracks. The guidelines ask for (I believe) 150 feet between a railroad track and any cache. And it has been claimed that the reason for that guideline is that people going too close to railroad tracks are trespassing on that property. Therefore, it is further claimed that the issue with railroad tracks has **NOTHING** to do with the danger of being hit by a train, it is simply about trespassing. And finally, it is also claimed that Groundspeak has no guidelines regarding safety, because if they were to judge safety, it would create legal liabilities that they do not want.

 

I believe that CanadianRockies is trying to investigate the validity of these claims. The desired outcome, at least from me, is simply a better understanding of how true these claims actually are. Just to satisfy curiosity.

[knowschad]

It has been alleged here that danger is not sufficient grounds to cause Groundspeak to archive a cache or refuse to publish it.

I can back you up on that -- it seems to come up when there is a question about a cache being "too close" to railroad tracks. The guidelines ask for (I believe) 150 feet between a railroad track and any cache. And it has been claimed that the reason for that guideline is that people going too close to railroad tracks are trespassing on that property. Therefore, it is further claimed that the issue with railroad tracks has **NOTHING** to do with the danger of being hit by a train, it is simply about trespassing. And finally, it is also claimed that Groundspeak has no guidelines regarding safety, because if they were to judge safety, it would create legal liabilities that they do not want.

 

I believe that CanadianRockies is trying to investigate the validity of these claims. The desired outcome, at least from me, is simply a better understanding of how true these claims actually are. Just to satisfy curiosity.

It is not just "claimed" that trespassing is the reason for the RR guidelines. It is factual and the history of it exists in these forums. Danger had nothing to do with it. If that were true, there would be an awful lot of dangerous caches archived.

 

I have not yet been able to figure out exactly what CanadianRockie's agenda is.

[+DanOCan]

I can back you up on that -- it seems to come up when there is a question about a cache being "too close" to railroad tracks. The guidelines ask for (I believe) 150 feet between a railroad track and any cache. And it has been claimed that the reason for that guideline is that people going too close to railroad tracks are trespassing on that property. Therefore, it is further claimed that the issue with railroad tracks has **NOTHING** to do with the danger of being hit by a train, it is simply about trespassing.

 

That is correct, the issue is related to tresspass, not safety. There have been plenty of caches published within the 150' of active railway lines, providing the cache owner can prove the location is on public property and not on the railway's land.

[+Moose Mob]

Are we talking about the safety of the location? or of the cache?

 

In 'the other' thread I mentioned that I have archived a cache due to 'gross negligence' and was challenged to post my input. I think it might be relevant here.

 

The cache was on a trail and the trail ran along a steep cliff about 30 feet down. I don't want to give away too much for privacy reasons, but this trail is on public land (not Groundspeak's land). The park maintains this trail so we would be out of place to overide the goerning authority to say it isn't safe for geocachers.

 

A geocacher places a cache on the opposite side of the trail in the rocks. They use a container designed in such a way that it would make a loud noise and scare the geocacher. Keep in mind that there is a cliff behind the cacher and they could (and almost did) fall off the cliff.

 

When I was made aware (by several of the cachers first at the site) of this situation, I archived the cache. Not archiving it would be negligent on my part. Please note the cache was the thing making the location truely dangerous, not the public trail.

 

If any land manager feels that the location is unsafe, they need to make that location non accessible or at a minimum it's unsafe nature known, they need to take adequate measures against it. There are fences around (most) mine shafts and fences along the interstates. Railroads are typically only protected by laws (and in some 'higher risk' locations you may find a fence).

 

Edit - clarity

Edited February 14, 2012 by Moose Mob

[+CanadianRockies]

In 'the other' thread I mentioned that I have archived a cache due to 'gross negligence' and was challenged to post my input.

In "the other thread," I was unable to find where anybody challenged you to post your input about archiving a cache due to gross negligence. However, when you posted the following...

 

Lets look at this from the legal perspective. If Groundspeak assumed authority over 'what is safe' and someone gets hurt while seeking it, then Groundspeak now has a liability beacuase the reviewers have deemed that cache as 'safe for seeking'.

...I indicated an interest in any citation or link that would support your assertion that judging danger would impose a legal liability. So far, nobody has been able to provide such evidence (as long as the company doesn't expressly certify the safety of the things they evaluate).

 

In the case of the cache you described, you (acting as a reviewer) judged it to be dangerous and archived it because you deemed it to be grossly negligent. By doing so you actually decreased your and Groundspeak's legal liability; you didn't increase it.

Edited February 15, 2012 by CanadianRockies

[+Moose Mob]

<snip>

In the case of the cache you described, you judged it to be dangerous and archived it because you deemed it to be grossly negligent. By doing so you actually decreased your and Groundspeak's legal liability; you didn't increase it.

If you were paying attention to what I said, you would have realized that I archived the cache because it would have been grossly neglegent for me to not take an action (as I was the one who published this cache and now aware that the cache created a dangerous situation). If thiswere on BLM land and I am not in charge of BLM land, and BLM allows geocaches, I would not be in a position to say 'no' to the location. I can say not tto the cache and it was the geocache creating the danger, not the location. The location was a hazard, but not dangerous unless there is an outside influence. I only archived the outside influence, not the location.

[+CanadianRockies]

<snip>

In the case of the cache you described, you judged it to be dangerous and archived it because you deemed it to be grossly negligent. By doing so you actually decreased your and Groundspeak's legal liability; you didn't increase it.

If you were paying attention to what I said, you would have realized that I archived the cache because it would have been grossly neglegent for me to not take an action (as I was the one who published this cache and now aware that the cache created a dangerous situation). If thiswere on BLM land and I am not in charge of BLM land, and BLM allows geocaches, I would not be in a position to say 'no' to the location. I can say not tto the cache and it was the geocache creating the danger, not the location. The location was a hazard, but not dangerous unless there is an outside influence.

Obviously, there is a communications breakdown somewhere.

 

I understand that you felt it would have been grossly negligent if you hadn't archived the cache in question. It doesn't matter if the cache was located on BLM land, other public land, Groundspeak property, or other private property. If you felt it would have been grossly negligent for you not to act, then you were right to archive it. I commend you for doing so.

 

But that just proves my point. You judged the situation to be dangerous, and your archiving action reduced your legal liability. Judging danger and acting appropriately didn't impose a legal liability upon you or Groundspeak. To the contrary, judging danger and acting appropriately reduced your chances of being successfully sued for gross negligence.

 

I only archived the outside influence, not the location.

Obviously. I don't even know what it would mean to archive a location.

Edited February 15, 2012 by CanadianRockies

[+Mr.Benchmark]

The cache was on a trail and the trail ran along a steep cliff about 30 feet down. I don't want to give away too much for privacy reasons, but this trail is on public land (not Groundspeak's land). The park maintains this trail so we would be out of place to overide the goerning authority to say it isn't safe for geocachers.

 

A geocacher places a cache on the opposite side of the trail in the rocks. They use a container designed in such a way that it would make a loud noise and scare the geocacher. Keep in mind that there is a cliff behind the cacher and they could (and almost did) fall off the cliff.

 

OT - Thank you for taking that action. I can't imagine what the fool who placed the cache was thinking, but aside from saving someone's life, you probably saved that CO civil or even criminal charges for setting up a situation like that. Although some go on and on about people needing to be responsible and to judge dangers for themselves (and I agree with that), I maintain that the problem is mostly the UNobvious dangers - stuff that is hidden and that the CO does not disclose in any way. (In this case, it sounds like it was a much worse problem - with the CO creating the danger.)

 

I have no problem with dangerous locations in particular - this stuff just needs to be disclosed as best as possible so the finder can make appropriate preparations, or avoid the situation entirely, or at minimum, just know they need to be especially alert. If problems are later discovered that are really a surprise to everyone, measures can be taken at that time, as appropriate.

 

It would seem to me that the biggest obstacle to reviewer's judging danger isn't legal, but that the information needed to make such a determination is usually not available to the reviewer who's looking at satellite, road & topo maps, and whatever other databases he may have available. The types of situations that usually need to be addressed would mostly need an onsite inspection to be revealed, I'd think. (Correct me if I'm wrong about this.) That only happens as people start to seek the cache and have a problem.

[Trinity's Crew]

I will readily admit I didn't read the whole thread, but to the OP, what are you trying to accomplish with this thread? A change in GS policy? An admission that they DO take safety into account? Where are you going with this?

[knowschad]

In 'the other' thread I mentioned that I have archived a cache due to 'gross negligence' and was challenged to post my input.

In "the other thread," I was unable to find where anybody challenged you to post your input about archiving a cache due to gross negligence. However, when you posted the following...

 

Lets look at this from the legal perspective. If Groundspeak assumed authority over 'what is safe' and someone gets hurt while seeking it, then Groundspeak now has a liability beacuase the reviewers have deemed that cache as 'safe for seeking'.

...I indicated an interest in any citation or link that would support your assertion that judging danger would impose a legal liability. So far, nobody has been able to provide such evidence (as long as the company doesn't expressly certify the safety of the things they evaluate).

 

In the case of the cache you described, you (acting as a reviewer) judged it to be dangerous and archived it because you deemed it to be grossly negligent. By doing so you actually decreased your and Groundspeak's legal liability; you didn't increase it.

 

Geeze, are you still fighting this battle?

[+Moose Mob]

I will readily admit I didn't read the whole thread, but to the OP, what are you trying to accomplish with this thread? A change in GS policy? An admission that they DO take safety into account? Where are you going with this?

It's an old resurrected thread, but a reoccurring topic. There is (and always will be) a group of folks that feel Groundspeak needs to be more proactive in warning new geocachers of potential dangers with certain geocaches. The response has been (and always will include) that Groundspeak has no way of accurately determining if a cache is dangerous and especially if a geocache is dangerous to that individual.

 

Just part of the learning curve.

[+Totem Clan]

I will readily admit I didn't read the whole thread, but to the OP, what are you trying to accomplish with this thread? A change in GS policy? An admission that they DO take safety into account? Where are you going with this?

It's an old resurrected thread, but a reoccurring topic. There is (and always will be) a group of folks that feel Groundspeak needs to be more proactive in warning new geocachers of potential dangers with certain geocaches. The response has been (and always will include) that Groundspeak has no way of accurately determining if a cache is dangerous and especially if a geocache is dangerous to that individual.

 

Just part of the learning curve.

I grew up in the woods. I can't remember not knowing how to make fire, track animals, read trail sign and so on. I was a an Army Ranger. I have taught myself to be able to "go into the wilderness naked and thrive." I've been rock climbing and repelling since I was 12. There would be very very few caches in any non-urban setting that I would consider dangerous. One of my daughter's ex-boyfriends thought sleeping in a cabin at the lake with indoor plumbing was roughing it. Who's standard of dangerous do we use? His or mine?

[+CanadianRockies]

I will readily admit I didn't read the whole thread, but to the OP, what are you trying to accomplish with this thread? A change in GS policy? An admission that they DO take safety into account? Where are you going with this?

Did you read my original post? I explained it there.

 

Several forum members have claimed that Groundspeak and its reviewers cannot consider dangers when they determine whether to publish (or archive) caches because they would become legally liable for any harm that results from all the other caches that they do publish (even if they are not expressly certifying the safety of those caches).

 

I find this notion to be counter to my understanding of the English/American/Canadian legal system. I'm wondering on what legal foundation such an odd concept is based upon. If it is true, then it would be nice if somebody could provide a link or a citation to something that supports this unsubstantiated assertion.

 

So far, nobody has been able to do so. That doesn't surprise me.

[+CanadianRockies]

There is (and always will be) a group of folks that feel Groundspeak needs to be more proactive in warning new geocachers of potential dangers with certain geocaches.

That's true, although I'd word it a little differently. Some folks feel Groundspeak, its reviewers, its cache owners, and/or its cache visitors should be more proactive in warning all geocachers of potential dangers with certain geocaches.

 

Of course, different people have different views about which geocaches this should apply to. Some, for example, feel it should apply to caches where the dangers are non-obvious and are likely to cause serious harm. I agree with this position.

 

The response has been (and always will include) that Groundspeak has no way of accurately determining if a cache is dangerous and especially if a geocache is dangerous to that individual.

I believe this is both true and false.

 

In my opinion, it's true that individuals need to take great responsibility for their own safety, especially when the dangers are obvious to anyone who is paying reasonable attention to their surroundings. Of course, we are not responsible for everything that happens to us. Some things are simply beyond our control.

 

I think it's incorrect to say Groundspeak has no way to accurately determine if a cache is dangerous. For instance, you received reliable reports that a particular cache had non-obvious dangers, so you archived it. (As well you should have.)

Edited February 15, 2012 by CanadianRockies