Jump to content

FYI about caching Safety & being a CO


Recommended Posts

An FYI:

 

I would like to point out something that many cachers as well as cache owners may or may not know about. A cache owner CAN be successfully sued for SAFETY reasons. At least here in Texas. I was a participant in this law suit. Because of court orders. I am NOT allowed to reveal any information that would be personally identifying to who was being sued &/or by whom, or to the exact amount of the case settlement.

 

Here are the facts that one needs to know to maybe be concerned about.

 

1. The CO did not issue any warnings about the possible dangers of finding this cache. The only warning was the generic geocaching.com warning.

 

2. The land was on public land and the goverment entity was not allowed to be sued in regards to this case. Had it been a private entity they would have been sued as well.

 

3. The cacher who was hunting this cache, was injured, but did not loose his/her life.

 

4. The cache in question is now archived. The cache in question also had 50+ finds without any injury being reported in regards to finding or even atempting to find the cache in question.

 

5. Several miles away is an area with the same issue that was near GZ of the cache. At that location was & still are many warning signs about the dangers of the locations in this geographical area.

 

6. Access to get to GZ of the cache in question does not/did not require any potential cacher to go to this other location where the warning signs were visable. Therefore, someone attempting this cache who wasn't from the area, would not have known about the signs, or the possible dangers.

 

7. The CO settled out of court. He/she could have taken it to trial. Even if he had WON the case, the CO would have still had to pay the multi-thousand dollar fee to his lawyer.

 

8. If the CO had simply put a warning about the additional dangers of attempting to find this cache, he might have been spared the financial loss of paying the victim, as well as having to pay his lawyer.

 

My suggestion would be, that if your a CO with a cache that has some form of danger involved, and your at least in United States. I would put warnings in my cache description informing any potential cacher of any unforseen dangers that atempting to find your cache may or may not have.

 

This is just an FYI. It is NOT meant to be directed at any individual, cacher, cache owner, or anyone directly or indirectly related to Groundspeak, geocaching.com or any of it's subsideraries, employees, volunteers &/or business associates

Link to comment

If point #2 is correct (which in itself sounds a bit fishy), then the CO most likely would have been indemnified, assuming in fact that the public is allowed on the property.

 

If that's the case, then not only would the CO have won the suit, he would have been able to obtain a judgment against the other party and recover any atty fees.

 

Something here doesn't sound right.

 

Why would the current property owner (I'm guessing some form of government?) be exempt from lawsuits?

Link to comment
A cache owner CAN be successfully sued for SAFETY reasons.

 

...

 

7. The CO settled out of court. He/she could have taken it to trial. Even if he had WON the case, the CO would have still had to pay the multi-thousand dollar fee to his lawyer.

 

Once again, I fail to follow your "logic." Anybody can be sued for anything. If an out-of court settlement is your definition of "successful," then your initial statement could be applied to anything, not just geocaching.

 

From a legal standpoint, it is not precedent until it has gone to trial or a judge has ruled on it. Neither happened in this case, so either you don't understand or you are being deliberately misleading.

Link to comment
8. If the CO had simply put a warning about the additional dangers of attempting to find this cache, he might have been spared the financial loss of paying the victim, as well as having to pay his lawyer.

How? Anyone can be sued for anything. Just check out this guy who sued God. The CO can add as many warnings as they want to the cache page, but that won't stop them from getting sued anyways. The legal issues get even more convoluted for cachers who don't even read the cache listing before going out.

Link to comment

If point #2 is correct (which in itself sounds a bit fishy), then the CO most likely would have been indemnified, assuming in fact that the public is allowed on the property.

 

If that's the case, then not only would the CO have won the suit, he would have been able to obtain a judgment against the other party and recover any atty fees.

 

Something here doesn't sound right.

 

Why would the current property owner (I'm guessing some form of government?) be exempt from lawsuits?

 

To your first comment... Just telling you what I know based on what I saw, heard & was told. All I can say, is come to Texas & ask a judge. Whatever it was. The Judge in question held it over for Trial and did not dimiss the case. All I know is I received the supena to appear at several hearings, as well as the final for the Trial. During the last hearing, is when I found out the case was settled out of court. The judge informed me that a "Gag" order was being issued and was not allowed to reveal any identifying information in regards to the lawsuit, or what the settlement was.

 

In Texas... A defendant isn't always entitled to recoup atty fees if they win. It all depends on the case, & the judge. In a different case several years ago I was sued for an issue not related to cacheing. I won, yet I was not awarded or allowed to recoup any money to cover my atty fees. I had to pay those fees out of pocket. It took me 8 months to pay off my lawyer & at a discounted rate. I am sure that if he could have gotten the other party who sued me to pay him, he would have. He probably would have received more money!

 

In regards to this case. I had asked that as well. All I was told is that they couldn't be sued. I didn't have time and didn't remember to ask about why they couldn't. Becaues I was neither the party sueing or being sued. At that time I didn't really care. I was only a "Witness". The land was army corp of engineers.

 

What I do know from "Life Experiances" is this. When it comes to sueing the US Federal Goverment certain branches of the federal goverment are in fact exempt from certain types of lawsuits. Im not a federal atty. So I wouldn't know what branches are excempt from what. I just know that some are exempt from certain types of lawsuits. This was something I learned a long time ago. The laws could have been changed in the last few years too. I honestly wouldn't know. This happend about a little more than a year ago.

 

My question is though. It only takes a few seconds to put a warning on a cache page. Is it really so bad to put that in a cache description just in case? I personally don't have any caches that are dangerous in ways that aren't obviously noticeable. The only caches I have that are close to be dangerous are ones that you have to play the game of Frogger. Those I use the "Dangerous" attribute. Some of those caches even have "Frogger" in their names.

 

Either way. Believe my what I have to say or not, its just an FYI. Take it or leave it.

 

TGC

Link to comment
A cache owner CAN be successfully sued for SAFETY reasons.

 

...

 

7. The CO settled out of court. He/she could have taken it to trial. Even if he had WON the case, the CO would have still had to pay the multi-thousand dollar fee to his lawyer.

 

Once again, I fail to follow your "logic." Anybody can be sued for anything. If an out-of court settlement is your definition of "successful," then your initial statement could be applied to anything, not just geocaching.

 

From a legal standpoint, it is not precedent until it has gone to trial or a judge has ruled on it. Neither happened in this case, so either you don't understand or you are being deliberately misleading.

This point struck me too.

 

To put it bluntly, if someone is stupid enough to agree to a settlement without understanding the law involved or without at least getting solid legal advice, then that's not winning a case, that's taking advantage of someones stupidity.

Link to comment

Once again, I fail to follow your "logic." Anybody can be sued for anything. If an out-of court settlement is your definition of "successful," then your initial statement could be applied to anything, not just geocaching.

 

No argument there. Anyone can be sued for anything, at anytime. However, I would like to believe that we do rely on the judges in our legal system to throw out & dismiss cases that are deemed "frivolous". To a certain extent even lawyers filter out a certain amount of "Frivolous" cases themselves by not even taking certain cases on. Yet as we all know from time to time, where here about cases where millions of dollars have been awareded to someone and yet on the surface there are lots of people who claim the case was frivolous. Such as the lady who won a multi-million dollar case against McDonalds for spilling coffee in her lap. Come on Coffee is hot... Duh!

 

Based on what I have heard. (I admit what I have heard could be wrong) is that the majority of law suits filed, are settled out of court. How a Plantiff or Defendant views success of their case that is settled out of court is subjective. I have been involved in several auto accidents. One case settled out of court. In my favor. Yet I didn't recieve near the money I wanted. Did I view that as a success. No. Another time where I was rearended, the case was settled out of court as well. I was able to get way more than expected. Was it successful. I felt like it was.

 

From a legal standpoint, it is not precedent until it has gone to trial or a judge has ruled on it. Neither happened in this case, so either you don't understand or you are being deliberately misleading.

 

Again... No argument. I just reread my post. No where in my post did I ever claim that a precendent was made by this case, nor did I mean to infer that a precendent was made.

 

Ouch... no I am not being deliverately misleading.

 

The 8 statements that I stated in my OP, were the facts as I witnessed them, &/or was informed by the officers of the court. (Judge, Court Clerks, Atty's)

 

Just like in a court of law. The only testimony I can give, is that to which I personally witnessed. That is what I am doing here. I was told by the officers of the court that they were not able to sue the land owner, and that if the land owner had been a private owner they could have. That was what they told me. Did they lie to me? Who knows. Not my place to say. Were they wrong? Maybe... But god for bid. Lets hope not.

 

#7... I witnessed what the settlement was and aproved by the judge. As far as the Defendant paying if he had won the case. Again the officers of the court told me he would have to pay his/her atty. I asked becasue (See previous post) There was an incident where I was a defendant and I had to pay my Atty even though I WON my case in a Trial. Maybe those laws have changed. I wouldn't know.

 

#8... The defendant was being sued not because of where the cache was placed, but because the CO didn't give satisfactor notice of any possible unforseen danger. That was the reason given by the plantiff.

 

I am not an officer of the court. I am not a lawyer. It isn't my place to decide if what happend in this case is right or wrong. If this case was frivolous or not. If the judge acted properly or not. As well if the atty's acted properly as well. I would like to believe that the officers of the court all acted legally & apropriately. What I do know is that the case was filed, the case was settled out of court, the Defendant had to pay out a huge chunk of change to all the parties (the plantif, plantif's atty, defendants atty, as well as pay the court costs)

 

I personally have over 240+ caches. I don't have any "Special" out of the ordinary "Warnings" on any of my caches that pertain to "Safety" issues. Other than maybe if you really want to get picky, my "Frogger" style caches. Then again I don't really go place caches that would be unusually dangerous.

 

TGC

Link to comment

To put it bluntly, if someone is stupid enough to agree to a settlement without understanding the law involved or without at least getting solid legal advice, then that's not winning a case, that's taking advantage of someones stupidity.

 

Now... with that statement.... How many lawyers in america try and take advantage of any situation they can to earn a few fees from unspecting people that have been injured? How many take advantage of someones stupidity, either as a plantif, or a defendant.

 

If your a person who has little to no knowledge of the legal system how it works, or what your rights are, how would you know that your getting solid legal advice? I am surprised that the defendant didn't have a better lawyer.

 

I am also suprised that the plantif even found a lawyer that took their case.... Then again...

 

Think about this... How often do you see a commercial on TV advertising services for "Injury Lawyers", How many of them are actually honest?

 

TGC

Link to comment

To put it bluntly, if someone is stupid enough to agree to a settlement without understanding the law involved or without at least getting solid legal advice, then that's not winning a case, that's taking advantage of someones stupidity.

 

Now... with that statement.... How many lawyers in america try and take advantage of any situation they can to earn a few fees from unspecting people that have been injured? How many take advantage of someones stupidity, either as a plantif, or a defendant.

 

If your a person who has little to no knowledge of the legal system how it works, or what your rights are, how would you know that your getting solid legal advice? I am surprised that the defendant didn't have a better lawyer.

 

I am also suprised that the plantif even found a lawyer that took their case.... Then again...

 

Think about this... How often do you see a commercial on TV advertising services for "Injury Lawyers", How many of them are actually honest?

 

TGC

 

Sounds more like cache listings should include warnings about dishonest, predatory lawyers... :blink:

Edited by NeverSummer
Link to comment

Here is where the law can get really muddy... Here in Minnesota, a warning sign issued or placed because you know an area or thing is dangerous, can be an admission of guilt. Example; I put out a sign saying "BEWARE OF DOG" then you come on my property and the dog bites you... I can be held responsible and sued because I admitted upfront, with the sign, that I had a dangerous animal

 

So, if we warned a person about each and every danger involved in a cache find, they get hurt somehow by one of the aforementioned dangers, we can be sued for knowingly putting them in danger. The exemption is that we did everything possible to prevent the danger from happening (locked dog up on chain and in the house, Provided the tools and safety equipment and training to use them right, etc)

 

While it is rare that someone can and will sue in a situation like this, it is legally acceptable and there truly is little one can do to prevent it.

 

The system is skewed, which is a shame. Thankfully Most cachers are an honest bunch and would be hard pressed to even think of suing another cacher because they got an owie doing something they love.

Link to comment

If the case is over and is public record, how come you have to be on double secret probation about it?

At least here in Ohio, if a case is settled out of court, the final settlement may be sealed and not be a matter of public record. I have no idea whether this is also the case in Texas, or if it applies to the case in question.

 

--Larry

Link to comment

:rolleyes: Awesome I obtained some scratches yesterday from a bush hide, there were no warnings on the cache page that this could happen. How much do you think I can get? :rolleyes:

 

Can you at least tell us how this guy hurt himself?

 

I will +1 this post, including the question.

 

No one has mentioned this, but I do believe this whole thread was most likely created after hearing about the tragic accident in Germany?

Link to comment

If the case is over and is public record, how come you have to be on double secret probation about it?

Lots of settlements have gag orders with respect to the terms of the settlement. But the court filings themselves are public record. You could wade through a zillion cases filed in the OP's county and find it, but you won't learn anything more (just who the involved parties are).

 

It's a shame the defendant didn't take this all the way through trial. It would be interesting to see what a court would do with this. I'm sure the defendant's attorney told him there was some risk involved in taking the case to trial (there probably always is, even if the lawsuit doesn't have a solid foundation). But I would have have expected a jury to agree with me that the plaintiff should watch where he's going when out dinking around in the forest/whatever.

 

It's an extra shame that one geocacher would sue another over a geological feature near GZ (which is what this sounds like). It's not like the CO set a booby trap. We live in a culture loves to blame everyone else for our own stupidity, and that's sad.

Link to comment

My question is though. It only takes a few seconds to put a warning on a cache page. Is it really so bad to put that in a cache description just in case?

 

Here's my concern. Where does it stop?

 

Warning! This is a nuclear waste disposal site!

Warning! Dangerous traffic ahead!

Warning! Slippery sidewalk!

Warning! Really nasty thorns here!

Warning! Aggressive mosquitos!

Warning! You could twist your ankle!

Warning! You'll have to bend over to pick up the cache!

 

If we had to list every hazard that might be encountered at one of our cache sites, it would look like a lawyer wrote it.

Link to comment

I'm not understanding why a geocacher would sue another geocacher for an injury? They had to understand the risks involved.

Not every risk is obvious. Suppose, for example, that the area contained toxic chemicals. Or the landscape was riddled with near-surface caves that could easily collapse if someone walked over them.

 

Suppose the cache owner was aware of this danger and knew it was likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to someone, but they did nothing to warn of the danger. Why shouldn't the injured geocacher sue the cache owner for gross negligence?

Link to comment

Anyone can be sued for anything.

Yes, but you're much less likely to be sued if you do nothing wrong.

 

The CO can add as many warnings as they want to the cache page, but that won't stop them from getting sued anyways.

Of course there are no guarantees. But if you place appropriate warnings on your cache page, then it's possible that: (1) people will be less likely to get injured, (2) injured parties will be less likely to sue, and (3) suers will be less likely to win. As a bonus, you might even feel better about yourself.

 

The legal issues get even more convoluted for cachers who don't even read the cache listing before going out.

Microwave manufacturers cannot force purchasers to read the warning messages included with their products. But, legally, they are wise to include those warnings.

Link to comment

My question is though. It only takes a few seconds to put a warning on a cache page. Is it really so bad to put that in a cache description just in case?

 

Here's my concern. Where does it stop?

 

Warning! This is a nuclear waste disposal site!

Warning! Dangerous traffic ahead!

Warning! Slippery sidewalk!

Warning! Really nasty thorns here!

Warning! Aggressive mosquitos!

Warning! You could twist your ankle!

Warning! You'll have to bend over to pick up the cache!

 

If we had to list every hazard that might be encountered at one of our cache sites, it would look like a lawyer wrote it.

 

I'm reminded now of the utterly ridiculous ride signage at Universal Studios Florida that I saw there. It was literally an 8 foot high sign with the warnings under a 4 inch title for the ride.

Odd, that what I remember about the park wasn't the rides I went on, the shows I saw or the food I ate. It was the legalese surrounding all the fun stuff ...

 

Link to comment

I'm not understanding why a geocacher would sue another geocacher for an injury? They had to understand the risks involved.

Not every risk is obvious. Suppose, for example, that the area contained toxic chemicals. Or the landscape was riddled with near-surface caves that could easily collapse if someone walked over them.

 

Suppose the cache owner was aware of this danger and knew it was likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to someone, but they did nothing to warn of the danger. Why shouldn't the injured geocacher sue the cache owner for gross negligence?

 

Why on earth would you put a cache in an area like that? That is just asking for some one to get injured.

Link to comment

Why on earth would you put a cache in an area like that? That is just asking for some one to get injured.

Because it's a cool place to visit?

 

Centralia, Pennsylvania is a town that was abandoned because of a coal mine fire that makes the area dangerous as the ground is unstable and vents smoke. There are about 8 geocaches there today. Watch your step!

Edited by kpanko
Link to comment

 

Not every risk is obvious. Suppose, for example, that the area contained toxic chemicals. Or the landscape was riddled with near-surface caves that could easily collapse if someone walked over them.

 

Suppose the cache owner was aware of this danger and knew it was likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to someone, but they did nothing to warn of the danger. Why shouldn't the injured geocacher sue the cache owner for gross negligence?

 

Because the cache owner did absolutely nothing to force anyone to try and find their cache.

It is called taking responsibility for your own actions.

If I injure myself doing something that I choose to do I have no one to blame but myself.

If someone puts out a cache container covered with broken glass and embedded razor blades and I am stupid enough to try and open it bare handed then I deserve to get cut.

If I fall 30 feet out of a tree because I lacked proper judgement of my own climbing abilities and my ability to cope with potential issues while attempting the climb then it is 100% my fault.

If I stick my unprotected hand into a space that I can not see into then I have just earned any bites or other injury that may occur.

If I blindly wade through 50 yards of poison ivy trying to reach a cache I have no one to curse but myself as I start to itch.

 

There is no way a potential cache owner could possibly cover and warn against every possible way a cache finder might attempt to do something stupid.

 

There may be 10 well marked paths through your toxic sink-hole infested example that are completely safe. Yet some cacher will eventually be stupid enough to wade through the green smoking pool of ooze, become disoriented from the fumes and wander over a sink-hole.

 

We start seeing more cases like in the OP then geocaching is finished in this country. Once suing cache owners becomes the new sport then who among any of us could afford the exposure to the liability?

And people like CanadianRockies seem to think that is perfectly fine :blink:

Link to comment

There may be 10 well marked paths through your toxic sink-hole infested example that are completely safe. Yet some cacher will eventually be stupid enough to wade through the green smoking pool of ooze, become disoriented from the fumes and wander over a sink-hole.

Why should that surprise anyone? Some people take great pride in taking the straightest line possible to a cache, paths be damned. If finders are expected to be responsible for their own actions, why aren't hiders as well?

Link to comment

Personally I think if you are dumb enough to hire a lawyer and promise to pay him/her no matter how the case turns out you deserve to pay both the lawyer and the injured party. The ACLU has lawyers tat take poor peoples cases PRO BONO.

This sounds like a case the defendant could have won without a lawyer provided the judge was fair.

If there are dangers that I am aware of, I will give the proper attributes and a disclaimer/warning on the cache page. If someone uses their smart/stupid phone and tries to go to any cache without reading the attributes and any warnings, they risk life and limb.

If I put a cache on an island and state that you need a boat do I really have to tell them they may need oars? If they swim and drown on the way back is it my fault?

Link to comment

My question is though. It only takes a few seconds to put a warning on a cache page. Is it really so bad to put that in a cache description just in case?

 

Here's my concern. Where does it stop?

 

Warning! This is a nuclear waste disposal site!

Warning! Dangerous traffic ahead!

Warning! Slippery sidewalk!

Warning! Really nasty thorns here!

Warning! Aggressive mosquitos!

Warning! You could twist your ankle!

Warning! You'll have to bend over to pick up the cache!

 

If we had to list every hazard that might be encountered at one of our cache sites, it would look like a lawyer wrote it.

 

I'm reminded now of the utterly ridiculous ride signage at Universal Studios Florida that I saw there. It was literally an 8 foot high sign with the warnings under a 4 inch title for the ride.

Odd, that what I remember about the park wasn't the rides I went on, the shows I saw or the food I ate. It was the legalese surrounding all the fun stuff ...

 

 

Hey, look... more attributes!!!

 

safetywarning.jpg

Link to comment

If finders are expected to be responsible for their own actions, why aren't hiders as well?

I do not understand this statement.

Should the cache owner be allowed to sue potential cache finders because the cache owner was hurt placing the cache for the finders to find? I mean if there were not all those pesky cache finders out there then the cache owner would not have been out there to get hurt placing the cache right?

 

What action should the cache owner be responsible for other then their own?

 

Placing the cache caused no injury to anyone.

 

Listing the cache on geocaching.com caused no injury to anyone.

 

Maintaining the cache condition causes no injury to anyone or has the potential to injure anyone other then the person doing the maintenance.

 

Anything beyond those three events is completely beyond the control of the cache owner. So what are they the cache owner supposed to be responsible for?

Link to comment

If finders are expected to be responsible for their own actions, why aren't hiders as well?

I do not understand this statement.

 

So what are they the cache owner supposed to be responsible for?

Just like no one must find a particular cache, a cache does not have to be hidden in particular place. If you lure people to a place such as the aforementioned toxic waste dump, then you have some responsibility for people being there. How that would play out in the courts remains to be seen.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

A number of times I have been upended looking for a cache, due to sticks, rocks and slippery leaves and not once have I thought about suing someone. Twisted my ankle badly when my foot went down a hole...I made sure to note that in my log to save anyone else the same fate.

What happens if you are going caching an hour away from home, and have a car accident...is that the fault of the cache owners? Gah! Whatever happened to taking responsibility for one's own actions?

Link to comment

Not every risk is obvious. Suppose, for example, that the area contained toxic chemicals. Or the landscape was riddled with near-surface caves that could easily collapse if someone walked over them.

 

Suppose the cache owner was aware of this danger and knew it was likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to someone, but they did nothing to warn of the danger. Why shouldn't the injured geocacher sue the cache owner for gross negligence?

Because the cache owner did absolutely nothing to force anyone to try and find their cache.

If you're walking down the street and someone throws a cinder block down from the balcony of an apartment building without caring if someone is walking below, then are you responsible for all the injuries that block might inflict upon you? Nobody forced you to walk down the street. Not every risk is obvious.

 

It is called taking responsibility for your own actions.

The cinder block thrower also should take responsibility for their actions, as should cache owners. In serious cases, we have courts to help determine who is responsible and how much.

 

If I injure myself doing something that I choose to do I have no one to blame but myself.

Really? If a drunk driver runs a red light and kills your family while you choose to drive, are you going to blame nobody but yourself? If a gas line explodes in the office building where you choose to work, are you going to blame only yourself for any injuries? Not every risk is obvious.

 

If someone puts out a cache container covered with broken glass and embedded razor blades and I am stupid enough to try and open it bare handed then I deserve to get cut.

What if a despicable person rigged the container to explode broken glass and razor blades after you open it? Not every risk is obvious.

 

If I fall 30 feet out of a tree because I lacked proper judgement of my own climbing abilities and my ability to cope with potential issues while attempting the climb then it is 100% my fault.

What if the safety harness you were using broke and the manufacturer had incorporated defective materials into the product, had known their harnesses were likely to break, and didn't recall the product? Are your injuries still 100% your fault? Not every risk is obvious.

 

If I stick my unprotected hand into a space that I can not see into then I have just earned any bites or other injury that may occur.

What if you stuck your hand into a lamppost that had become electrified because its insulation had failed? Suppose the landowner, cache owner, and reviewer knew about the danger and did nothing? Not every risk is obvious.

 

There is no way a potential cache owner could possibly cover and warn against every possible way a cache finder might attempt to do something stupid.

And nobody expects them to warn against every possible danger. But shouldn't they warn about serious hidden dangers of which they are aware?

 

There may be 10 well marked paths through your toxic sink-hole infested example that are completely safe. Yet some cacher will eventually be stupid enough to wade through the green smoking pool of ooze, become disoriented from the fumes and wander over a sink-hole.

My example never mentioned green smoking ooze or obvious sink-holes. The toxic chemical could be dirt-colored powder that a geocacher could contact by touching when they sit on the ground. And the caves were near the surface below unstable ground, not necessarily exposed to view from the surface. Not every risk is obvious.

 

We start seeing more cases like in the OP then geocaching is finished in this country. Once suing cache owners becomes the new sport then who among any of us could afford the exposure to the liability?

 

And people like CanadianRockies seem to think that is perfectly fine :blink:

I think people should be held responsible if they hide caches in areas they know are dangerous and are likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to someone but do nothing to warn of the danger. Geocachers should not be immune from the consequences of gross negligence.

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

1) I'm glad I don't live in Texas. I wouldn't want to be reduced to hiding only LPCs to avoid lawsuits. Hmm, lampskirts can have sharp edges...nevermind.

 

2) Good to know I can sue for damages if I ever get injured while caching in Texas.

 

3) Lots of other unanswered questions...like how was it proven the CO even knew about this 'dangerous feature' if they didn't include a warning about it?

 

WARNING! There are lots of open mineshafts in Arizona. You could fall in and get a boo-boo.

 

My thanks to the OP for pointing out how seriously twisted our litigious society has become. :(

Link to comment

If you lure people to a place such as the aforementioned toxic waste dump, then you have some responsibility for people being there.

I lured them? Did I offer candy or something?

Cache seekers do not have the self-control to decide for themselves whether or not to participate in a particular cache?

I listed the cache so they must seek it?

So since I lured them to an area beyond their ability to resist and am now responsible for the condition of the area then I suppose I must be responsible for the area which the cache seeker must traverse to arrive at the cache area I am now responsible for as well.

So if they fall down their front steps leaving their own home while seeking my cache am I also responsible? My cache forced them to leave their house.

How much of the toxic waste area should I be responsible for? A 10 foot radius of the coordinates? A 100 foot radius? The entire 50 acre property? If a cache seeker chooses to climb the 10 foot fence on the back side of the property and injures themselves instead of entering the property from the parking area with the open gate would that be my responsibility as well?

If you place a cache in a beautiful nature preserve and I get eaten by a bear, would that be your responsibility?

If I get mugged attempting to retrieve a LPC would that be the cache owners fault for bringing me to this obviously dangerous neighborhood?

Do you think if I simply put the disclaimer on my toxic dump cache listing of 'please don't seek this cache since you might be hurt' the previously lured cache seeker might abstain from seeking my cache?

This attitude of wanting to assign responsibility to a cache owner for things they can not be responsible for will be the death of caching.

Link to comment

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on the Internet, but...

I was under the impression that, when a case is settled out of court, part of the settlement agreement can be that neither participant will discuss the settlement. A judge will not, not can not, impose a gag order, unless agreed to by both sides of the litigation. This is part of the settlement agreement. And that only applies to the two parties involved in the litigation. So, unless the OP is one of the parties involved, this is all bullhonkery. I view this story as 'Pants on Fire'.

Link to comment

 

-snip a bunch of examples that skirt the issue--

 

 

I think people should be held responsible if they hide caches in areas they know are dangerous and are likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to someone but do nothing to warn of the danger.

 

First most of your examples provide the actions of a 3rd party.

The cinderblock was dropped by a 3rd party, I did not injure myself with the cinderblock, they injured me with it.

The drunk driver, same thing. They hit me. Their direct actions cause my injury, not my being there.

If, after the cache owner places the cache a 3rd party arrives and plants an explosive device in the cache and I am injured that would not be an obvious risk either. Yet I take that chance willingly every time I decide to open a strange object that I hope is a safe and benign cache container.

The cache in the toxic dump did not injury me. That cache could sit there causing no harm to anyone til the end of time. The toxic waste, which the cache owner did not create or distribute nor ask anyone to have direct contact with may cause injury. Sue the creator of the injuring material, not the creator of the cache listing which did not injure you at all.

 

Please list one, just one single place on earth where there is not the possibility of foreseeable grave harm or injury occurring to someone.

 

People die and are injured in urban areas all the time, people have been killed in parking lots, churches, walking near buildings, walking near roads etc and it is likely and foreseeable that it may happen again. So all urban cache areas should be excluded from having caches placed there.

 

People die and are injured in rural areas all the time, people have been killed by wild animals, farming accidents, driving accidents, slips and falls on leaves grass etc and it is likely and foreseeable that these type of deaths and injuries will occur again. So all rural areas should be excluded from having caches placed there.

 

So where is left in the world that is free of likely foreseeable grave harm or death?

Link to comment

People die and are injured in rural areas all the time, people have been killed by wild animals, farming accidents, driving accidents, slips and falls on leaves grass etc and it is likely and foreseeable that these type of deaths and injuries will occur again. So all rural areas should be excluded from having caches placed there.

 

So where is left in the world that is free of likely foreseeable grave harm or death?

If enough people drive often enough, then, yes, it's likely and foreseeable that someone will be severely injured or killed. But that's not the issue here. The question is how likely and foreseeable it is that you will be gravely harmed or killed in a particular vehicle. If it's known that a given car's cruise control, for instance, has a significant chance of catching fire, then the manufacturer would be wise to recall it.

 

Auto makers aren't exempt from gross negligence, nor should cache owners be. They should be responsible for their actions, too.

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on the Internet, but...

I was under the impression that, when a case is settled out of court, part of the settlement agreement can be that neither participant will discuss the settlement. A judge will not, not can not, impose a gag order, unless agreed to by both sides of the litigation. This is part of the settlement agreement. And that only applies to the two parties involved in the litigation. So, unless the OP is one of the parties involved, this is all bullhonkery. I view this story as 'Pants on Fire'.

I am not a lawyer nor do I pretend to be one either.

However I do believe that there is the possible misunderstanding of legal terms and issues that may be clouding the issues.

Perhaps there was no 'gag order' issued. But would it not be possible that a recommendation or statement was taken as a binding instruction of the court?

The plaintiff and the defendant reach a settlement. Both parties agree to not discussing the case. The judge recognizes and mentions this part of the agreement when the case is closed. As a non-lawyer I might think the judge's statement also applied to me even though I was only a potential witness and happened to be there at the time (I was not there or involved in any fashion but just speculating on how I might react, judges and courts and all that are scary and overwhelming to many who are not often involved with them). So I guess I am not really understanding the 'shoot the messenger' tone to some of the posts.

 

But anyway....

 

Even if this particular case was pure fiction (and I am not saying it is) the possibility of a case like this happening is real. And what alarms me and concerns me the most is the attitude of other actual geocachers that this type of litigation should happen. Actual geocachers think cache owners should be held libel for injuries. This is scary stuff when members of an activity want to sue the people providing the activity.

It really makes me reconsider hiding any more caches now that I must worry that CanadianRockies and other geocachers may try to sue me because of it.

Link to comment

Actual geocachers think cache owners should be held libel for injuries.

If you're referring to me, then you should be aware by now that I believe cache owners should be libel for injuries when they bear some legal responsibility for those injuries. The distinction is important. I don't believe geocachers (or anyone else) should be above the law. As somebody said earlier in this thread:

 

It is called taking responsibility for your own actions.

Link to comment

 

If you're referring to me, then you should be aware by now that I believe cache owners should be libel for injuries when they bear some legal responsibility for those injuries. The distinction is important.

Yes I am referring to you and others who have posted similar ideas.

And I am still waiting for the location where there is no possible risk of likely and foreseeable grave harm or injury so I could place a cache there.

I also have yet to see an example where a cache owner should be legally responsible for the actions of another person. You can talk of auto makers and loon's with cinder blocks and drunks, yet seem to avoid any clear examples of a cache owner doing something that directly causes injury to a cache seeker just by placing a cache somewhere.

The cache in the toxic dump does not have to be found. The individual cache seeker makes the personal decision to attempt to find any cache. The cache owner does not force anyone to break any laws or risk any injuries by listing a cache or by hiding a cache. If the cache seeker chooses to break the law or risk an injury that is (or should be)completely their own responsibility.

 

Which makes more logical sense:

 

A.) a cache seeker should assume that there could be hidden or unknown dangers when attempting to seek any cache

 

or

 

B.) a cache seeker can safely assume that since it was not listed on the cache description that there is no possible way they might be injured while seeking a cache because the cache owner has completely addressed all potential threats to safety. Even though safety is never mentioned in the listing guidelines the cache owner agreed to.

Link to comment

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on the Internet, but...

I was under the impression that, when a case is settled out of court, part of the settlement agreement can be that neither participant will discuss the settlement. A judge will not, not can not, impose a gag order, unless agreed to by both sides of the litigation. This is part of the settlement agreement. And that only applies to the two parties involved in the litigation. So, unless the OP is one of the parties involved, this is all bullhonkery. I view this story as 'Pants on Fire'.

 

YOU SAID 'BULLHONKERY!!!"""" :lol:

 

 

 

 

(sorry... Off-Topic forum humor involved)

Link to comment

Why on earth would you put a cache in an area like that? That is just asking for some one to get injured.

Because it's a cool place to visit?

 

Centralia, Pennsylvania is a town that was abandoned because of a coal mine fire that makes the area dangerous as the ground is unstable and vents smoke. There are about 8 geocaches there today. Watch your step!

 

I went there a few months ago but didnt see any smoke and was very disappointed to not find any sinkholes.

 

The cache owner cannot be responsible for safety, or should be sued for it.

 

However, if the area is off limits and the cache owner is aware of that, they should be held responsible. If I break my leg looking for a cache it is entirely my fault, and I accept responsibility.

 

However if I get arrested for trespassing because the land was posted and the cache owner knew it all along, but decided to put parking coords where cachers would not see any signage, they should be held responsible for being knowingly deceptive.

 

Accepting responsibility is a 2 way street. Everyone should be held responsible for their actions. Safety is the responsibility of the cache finder. Trespassing is the responsibility of the cache hider.

Link to comment

This morning Quill and I got a FTF on a cache that looked like a book in the library. I let Quill sign her first FTF log. Neither of us got a paper cut from the log page. Is it the cache owners liability or the library's if a book falls on your head?

The one and only cache that I found in Texas was a LPC in front of a driving school. I'm glad the school was not open and giving lessons at the time. Should the cache owner be responsible if a cacher gets run down by an unlicensed driver in that parking lot?

Link to comment

If you lure people to a place such as the aforementioned toxic waste dump, then you have some responsibility for people being there.

I lured them? Did I offer candy or something?

You placed a cache there and in effect said, "come and get it." Setting aside the question of whether you had to trespass in the toxic dump, you still could end up being sued after some unfortunate meets their demise while seeking your cache. Whether or not you think you have any responsibility is immaterial. You, or more likely your insurance company, will almost certainly settle the claim before you get to court. it will not be a pleasant experience.

 

You say, "It is called taking responsibility for your own actions", yet you also say you as a cache hider have no responsibility. I am unconvinced.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...