Jump to content

FYI about caching Safety & being a CO


Recommended Posts

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. :(

Everything is Arizona is trying to bite, stab, or sting, so as you drop into the mineshaft, severely dehydrated and having suffered heavy blood loss, you will probably be grateful to have discovered a cool resting place. Given the apocryphal nature of the lawsuit, I would not worry too much about it. But I still would not hide a cache somewhere where I am tempting fate, such as in a guardrail on a dangerous curve (or any guardrail for that matter).

Link to comment

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.

Randomly select 100 caches. My guess is that at least 99 of them will not be in locations where "the cache owner was aware of [a] danger and knew it was likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to someone, but they did nothing to warn of the danger." (See my Post #21.)

 

I also have yet to see an example where a cache owner should be legally responsible for the actions of another person.

Cache seekers are responsible for their own actions. Cache hiders are responsible for their own actions, including actions that constitute gross negligence. Neither cache seekers nor cache hiders should be above the law.

 

You can talk of auto makers and loon's with cinder blocks and drunks...

I asked, "Why shouldn't the injured geocacher sue the cache owner for gross negligence?" You replied, "Because the cache owner did absolutely nothing to force anyone to try and find their cache." So I explained how people tossing cinder blocks off apartment balconies are still responsible for their actions even when nobody forces people to walk on the street below.

 

You claimed, "If I injure myself doing something that I choose to do I have no one to blame but myself." So I explained how you might blame others if a drunk driver runs a red light and slams into the vehicle you chose to drive. You also could be injured and blame others if your car manufacturer installed a faulty cruise control that caught fire.

 

...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.

Again, from my Post #21, "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."

 

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.

But that doesn't immunize the cache hider from their legal responsibilities. No more than your making a personal decision to drive a car relieves that car manufacturer of their legal responsibilities.

 

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

Of course cache seekers should realize that there could be dangers that are hidden and unknown to them. But if those hidden dangers are known to the cache hider and the cache hider knows that they are likely to cause serious harm or death to a cache seeker, and the cache hider does nothing to warn the seeker, then I think the cache hider should be held legally accountable for their gross negligence. Nobody should be above the law.

Link to comment

Randomly select 100 caches. My guess is that at least 99 of them will not be in locations where "the cache owner was aware of [a] danger and knew it was likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to someone, but they did nothing to warn of the danger." (See my Post #21.)

 

 

Ok, not quite 'random' but lets see...

 

GC2TQT3. Asking people to enter an area where potentially dangerous animals are running loose without warning cache finders about the damage and injury those animals are capable of causing. Also no mention or warning of the potential diseases that can be spread by the waste of those same loose animals.

 

GC31FM3. While a road is mentioned there is no mention or warning about traffic. From satellite images it is clear that potentially dangerous farm equipment could be operating in the area yet no mention of that is given on the cache page.

 

GC2FGN5. Cache is located in a park near a river yet there is no mention of the potential of mosquitoes or other biting insects that can carry dangerous diseases. Cache description advises people to go off the established trail yet makes no mention of potentially poisonous plants (for finders who may have allergies) or plants with thorns or other type of plant defense.

 

Should I continue compiling the list? All the dangerous issues I have pointed out should have been readily evident to the cache owner, yet they willfully and negligently omitted them from their cache listing. Do you think the cache owner in these cases is trying to be 'above the law'?

Link to comment

Not every danger needs to be mentioned, just non-obvious ones. Mentioning that dogs may be present in a dog park is not necessary, but invisible radiation or land mines should be mentioned. And usually we have these warnings, and it keeps people safer.

 

What is the line between obvious and non-obvious? That's a job for judges and lawyers.

Link to comment

 

Ok, not quite 'random' but lets see...

 

GC2TQT3. Asking people to enter an area where potentially dangerous animals are running loose without warning cache finders about the damage and injury those animals are capable of causing. Also no mention or warning of the potential diseases that can be spread by the waste of those same loose animals.

 

GC31FM3. While a road is mentioned there is no mention or warning about traffic. From satellite images it is clear that potentially dangerous farm equipment could be operating in the area yet no mention of that is given on the cache page.

 

GC2FGN5. Cache is located in a park near a river yet there is no mention of the potential of mosquitoes or other biting insects that can carry dangerous diseases. Cache description advises people to go off the established trail yet makes no mention of potentially poisonous plants (for finders who may have allergies) or plants with thorns or other type of plant defense.

 

Should I continue compiling the list? All the dangerous issues I have pointed out should have been readily evident to the cache owner, yet they willfully and negligently omitted them from their cache listing. Do you think the cache owner in these cases is trying to be 'above the law'?

 

Pretty funny...especially the part about biting insects.

How difficult is it to avoid a rampaging farm tractor?

The part about 'plants with thorns' is the most entertaining of all! :lol:

Link to comment

The OP says he received a final subpoena for trial but that it was settled out of court before trial.

 

Seeing how quickly things like this are brought to the forums when they first pop up, it's just hard to believe that this was never mentioned before.

 

I understand how the court could suppress information after the settlement was reached, but no one said anything here before then?

 

Boy, we must be losing our touch. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

The OP says he received a final subpoena for trial but that it was settled out of court before trial.

 

Seeing how quickly things like this are brought to the forums when they first pop up, it's just hard to believe that this was never mentioned before.

 

I understand how the court could suppress information after the settlement was reached, but no one said anything here before then?

 

Boy, we must be losing our touch. :rolleyes:

 

Before trial? Did he say that?

Link to comment

The OP says he received a final subpoena for trial but that it was settled out of court before trial.

 

Seeing how quickly things like this are brought to the forums when they first pop up, it's just hard to believe that this was never mentioned before.

 

I understand how the court could suppress information after the settlement was reached, but no one said anything here before then?

 

Boy, we must be losing our touch. :rolleyes:

 

Personally, I do not want to be yelled at by his wife again. Oops, did I say that out loud? :ph34r:

Link to comment

The OP says he received a final subpoena for trial but that it was settled out of court before trial.

 

Seeing how quickly things like this are brought to the forums when they first pop up, it's just hard to believe that this was never mentioned before.

 

I understand how the court could suppress information after the settlement was reached, but no one said anything here before then?

 

Boy, we must be losing our touch. :rolleyes:

 

Before trial? Did he say that?

 

That's the way I understood it.

 

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.

Link to comment

The OP says he received a final subpoena for trial but that it was settled out of court before trial.

 

Seeing how quickly things like this are brought to the forums when they first pop up, it's just hard to believe that this was never mentioned before.

 

I understand how the court could suppress information after the settlement was reached, but no one said anything here before then?

 

Boy, we must be losing our touch. :rolleyes:

 

Before trial? Did he say that?

 

That's the way I understood it.

 

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.

 

At the last of several hearings, he heard that the case had been settled out of court. That's how I read it. Not sure if it matters, except that in my scenario, TGC probably has more information about the circumstances than if he had never sat in on any testimony.

Link to comment

The OP says he received a final subpoena for trial but that it was settled out of court before trial.

 

Seeing how quickly things like this are brought to the forums when they first pop up, it's just hard to believe that this was never mentioned before.

 

I understand how the court could suppress information after the settlement was reached, but no one said anything here before then?

 

Boy, we must be losing our touch. :rolleyes:

 

Before trial? Did he say that?

 

That's the way I understood it.

 

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.

 

At the last of several hearings, he heard that the case had been settled out of court. That's how I read it. Not sure if it matters, except that in my scenario, TGC probably has more information about the circumstances than if he had never sat in on any testimony.

 

Your scenario is the same as mine. Not sure where we are disagreeing, if at all.

 

I just think we are getting a little laxed around here.

 

When Repak was arrested we heard about it right away and were kept updated as it neared trial, even though he ultimately made a deal.

 

When Heim was arrested for shooting the teen geocacher, we heard about it immediately and were updated as it went to trial.

 

Just seems a CO being sued due to a cache placement would have been reported around here.

 

We need better eyes and ears in Texas.

Link to comment

We need better eyes and ears in Texas.

 

Don't look at me. This was all news to me when the OP mentioned it on the thread about Willimax's death.

 

I know a great many of the Texas cachers and just about all of the major players. I'm about as networked as a cacher can get in this state after almost 9 years on scene.

 

Not so much as a peep. Not a blip on the radar. :unsure:

 

However, I do see where a CO could be on the hook for a major injury or a death in the tort laws under Duty of Care and Standard of Care.

 

I'm referring specifically to the part in Duty of Care that speaks of proximity and that clause in the Groundspeak disclaimer that I read (between the lines) to say, "Wasn't us. Talk to the CO. It's their cache."

 

I too am not a lawyer, but I truly believe it's a matter of time before there is a legal precedent for a CO getting sued. I also believe that it will have something to do with Duty of Care.

 

Anyone care to google those two legal terms and tell us what you see...? :unsure:

Link to comment

Not so much as a peep. Not a blip on the radar. :unsure:

The whole story is full of holes, and since the OP can't provide a case number (which is ALWAYS public), its very doubtful any of this is true.

 

However, I do see where a CO could be on the hook for a major injury or a death in the tort laws under Duty of Care and Standard of Care.

 

I'm referring specifically to the part in Duty of Care that speaks of proximity and that clause in the Groundspeak disclaimer that I read (between the lines) to say, "Wasn't us. Talk to the CO. It's their cache."

 

I too am not a lawyer, but I truly believe it's a matter of time before there is a legal precedent for a CO getting sued. I also believe that it will have something to do with Duty of Care.

Private property, maybe.

 

Public property, doubtful (unless the CO put it in an off limits area). In most cases, liability would first fall on the property owner (the city, county, state, etc. who ever owns it). Of course this assumes that the CO did indeed get permission to place the cache or that the governing body involved has an open caching policy that doesn't require permission.

Link to comment

I too am not a lawyer, but I truly believe it's a matter of time before there is a legal precedent for a CO getting sued. I also believe that it will have something to do with Duty of Care.

Negligence is the word you are looking for. It all depends on the jurisdiction and a lot of other hypotheticals, but you are probably taking on some additional risk if you fail to follow the law when you place a cache. Like I said earlier, I would personally be very leery about hiding a cache in a guardrail for just that reason.

Link to comment

I too am not a lawyer, but I truly believe it's a matter of time before there is a legal precedent for a CO getting sued. I also believe that it will have something to do with Duty of Care.

Negligence is the word you are looking for. It all depends on the jurisdiction and a lot of other hypotheticals, but you are probably taking on some additional risk if you fail to follow the law when you place a cache. Like I said earlier, I would personally be very leery about hiding a cache in a guardrail for just that reason.

 

After the FTF or maint. runs, the cache may have migrated. May have even migrated before anyone found it. I had the cache sitting in a bed of cotton. Thats my story.

Link to comment

Public property, doubtful (unless the CO put it in an off limits area). In most cases, liability would first fall on the property owner (the city, county, state, etc. who ever owns it).

In most cases, public property owners and employees are exempt from liability (see sovereign immunity). Private citizens who behave negligently on public property, however, are still legally responsible for their actions. If you carelessly run over someone with your vehicle outside a national park visitor center, for instance, a lawsuit might well be forthcoming.

Link to comment

Public property, doubtful (unless the CO put it in an off limits area). In most cases, liability would first fall on the property owner (the city, county, state, etc. who ever owns it).

In most cases, public property owners and employees are exempt from liability (see sovereign immunity). Private citizens who behave negligently on public property, however, are still legally responsible for their actions. If you carelessly run over someone with your vehicle outside a national park visitor center, for instance, a lawsuit might well be forthcoming.

In the U.S. it applies to the federal government and it is not absolute immunity. What this all bolis down to is risk vs. reward and you have to decide that for yourself.

Link to comment

Thanks very much to CanadianRockies for mentioning "sovereign immunity" - the formal legal term that explains why the OP heard the court say that the public landowner couldn't be sued.

 

In the United States, Recreational Use Statutes are another concept for geocachers to keep in mind when having permission conversations with landowners (especially private landowners).

 

Unfortunately, because I *AM* a lawyer, I cannot provide advice on finder vs. cache owner lawsuits. I will just say that (1) anyone can sue for anything, and (2) it's very common, and not at all stupid, to settle lawsuits out of court for an amount that would be less than the cost of the legal fees to carry through a full trial ending with a favorable verdict. In the USA, unlike England and some other countries, each side generally bears its own legal fees absent a contrary agreement in advance.

Link to comment

Public property, doubtful (unless the CO put it in an off limits area). In most cases, liability would first fall on the property owner (the city, county, state, etc. who ever owns it).

In most cases, public property owners and employees are exempt from liability (see sovereign immunity). Private citizens who behave negligently on public property, however, are still legally responsible for their actions. If you carelessly run over someone with your vehicle outside a national park visitor center, for instance, a lawsuit might well be forthcoming.

In the U.S. it applies to the federal government and it is not absolute immunity.

In the United States, sovereign immunity applies to state governments as well. States also can immunize local governments. My preface "in most cases" was intended to imply that this immunity is not absolute.

 

What this all bolis down to is risk vs. reward and you have to decide that for yourself.

And be willing to assume some responsibility for your actions, both as a cache seeker and as a cache hider.

Link to comment

I will just say that (1) anyone can sue for anything...

Just to clarify, and I'm sure Keystone didn't intend for it to be taken this way... This doesn't mean one should act any way one wants to, since anyone can be sued for anything anyway. If your behavior is legal, then you're much less likely to be sued (and more likely to get a better outcome if you are sued).

Link to comment

Absolutely.

 

I work for a company who, by the nature of its business, has a big red target on its back that says "SUE ME." We keep more than 100 lawyers on staff in-house, and spend millions of dollars paying outside law firms in addition to that.

 

We do everything we can to deliver quality products and services, to avoid mistakes, and to provide good customer service. Still, the lawsuits happen. A lot of them. The vast majority are dismissed or settled.

Link to comment

I think Texas is messed up.

 

If the plaintiff "loses" he should ALWAYS pay the other person's legal fee's.

 

Otherwise, it makes it so easy to abuse people, just come up a lawsuit of any semblance of having a legimate reason, and charge someone with a good amount of cash (Enough to settle out-of-court) but not too much (Could prove a point with legal fee's) and you essentially win by default.

 

The CO should have won this case. Texas law didn't give him the option to.

Link to comment

It is called taking responsibility for your own actions.

For some reason, watching the dialog between you and CanadianRocky reminded me of a line from the movie Last of the Mohicans, where the lead character Hawkeye, an adopted member of the Mohawk Indian tribe, while talking to a British Colonial woman, said, "My father warned me about you. He said 'Do not try to understand them, and do not try to make them understand you. That is because they are a breed apart and make no sense'.

I think, for you and I, we should switch "British Colonials" for "Liberals".

They truly believe the silliest things. And believe them with conviction.

Trying to discuss notions like personal accountability with them is going to get you naught but blank looks.

 

If you lure people to a place such as the aforementioned toxic waste dump...

I'm sorry. How, exactly, does a film can "lure" anybody, anywhere? I've seen a lot of film cans over the years. I even have a grocery bag full of them on in my desk. I've never seen any of them do any physical act, up to and including "luring" people. The same is true of soda bottle preforms, bison tubes, decon kits, Lock & Locks and ammo cans. They are all inanimate objects. As far as I can tell, the motivation to hunt a cache has to come from within each seeker, when they make a conscious decision to either hunt a particular cache, or not hunt a particular 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.

But in your analogy, the guy walking down the street would have to sue the person who built the street so close to the building, knowing full well the effects of gravity, and the chances that people would walk down the street, near the building, thereby subjecting themselves to being hit by anything on or near that building that might suddenly find itself subject to gravity.

 

A reasonable person would argue that the street builder did not "lure" people to walk there. A reasonable person would also argue that walking down streets can be hazardous, and everyone who attempts such acts should take reasonable precautions when doing so, therefor, the street builder should not be held liable for any injuries incurred by people walking down their street.

A reasonable person would say the same about a geocache hider.

A cache hider is not analogous with a brick tosser.

 

You placed a cache there and in effect said, "come and get it."

Actually, what he, in effect said was, "There is a cache here". If you, (the collective you, not the individual you), translate that into something like, "Come and get it", then I would argue that your reading comprehension is sufficiently poor that you, (again, the collective you), should probably never set foot outside of your house. Of course, since most accidents occur inside the home, you would probably feel I was liable for any injury you receive at home, since I suggested you stay inside.

 

I own roughly 60 active hides, not counting sock puppets.

None of them so much as hint "Come and get it".

I have found roughly 1600 caches.

None of them said "Come and get it" either.

 

But I still would not hide a cache somewhere where I am tempting fate

By your definition of liability, wouldn't any cache, hidden in a place that could lead to injury, (which, incidentally, is any place on the planet), be tempting fate? Your cache M&M is a perfect example of this. You are "luring" people to walk down into a canyon, knowing that any hike involving changing elevation carries certain risks. But you aren't even willing to add a "Dangerous Location" attribute. Your cache Under the Bridge appears even more hazardous, as you are "luring" people to hike a knife-edged ridge which descends quite rapidly. Yet again, no "Dangerous Location" attribute. From your perspective, that sounds like a lawsuit in the making.

 

Those of us (the collective us), with common sense recognize that simply being alive and interacting with the world involves risk. Because we recognize this, we take reasonable precautions when doing whatever it is we do, and accept responsibility for our injuries if we fail to take such precautions. Blindly walking from Point A to Point B would certainly qualify as failing to take reasonable precautions.

 

Randomly select 100 caches. My guess is that at least 99 of them will not be...

Randomly select 100 caches. My guess is that at least 99 of them will be in locations where there exists the possibility for injury. I would further guess that those 99 will fail to mention the possibility for injury. Sounds like gross negligence to me... Knowing about a potential hazard and refusing to post warnings about it...

 

I think Texas is messed up.

 

If the plaintiff "loses" he should ALWAYS pay the other person's legal fee's.

Uh... Are there any states in this Union where the loser is always required to pay the winner's legal fees?

 

The CO should have won this case. Texas law didn't give him the option to.

If you don't mind, could you expound upon that pearl of wisdom? Since you appear ready to render a verdict, I can only assume you know all the facts of the case, as well as the applicable case law regarding each facet of the incident in question. Since you do know the facts, and presumably are not under the same gag order which the OP claims is keeping him silent, could you tell us what happened? As to Texas law not giving him a chance, can you explain that concept as well? If this case was resolved in the manner TGC claimed, it was settled out of court. The CO would have had to be a willing participant in such a settlement. How, exactly, did Texas law strip the CO of that particular right of due process?

Link to comment

But I still would not hide a cache somewhere where I am tempting fate

By your definition of liability, wouldn't any cache, hidden in a place that could lead to injury, (which, incidentally, is any place on the planet), be tempting fate? Your cache M&M is a perfect example of this. You are "luring" people to walk down into a canyon, knowing that any hike involving changing elevation carries certain risks. But you aren't even willing to add a "Dangerous Location" attribute. Your cache Under the Bridge appears even more hazardous, as you are "luring" people to hike a knife-edged ridge which descends quite rapidly. Yet again, no "Dangerous Location" attribute. From your perspective, that sounds like a lawsuit in the making.

 

Those of us (the collective us), with common sense recognize that simply being alive and interacting with the world involves risk. Because we recognize this, we take reasonable precautions when doing whatever it is we do, and accept responsibility for our injuries if we fail to take such precautions. Blindly walking from Point A to Point B would certainly qualify as failing to take reasonable precautions.

 

There is no need to drag this down by being argumentative just for the sake of being argumentative. You are free to do whatever you like. You can run red lights, text on your cellphone while driving, or hide caches in guardrails on blind curves. No one is stopping you. Claiming you have enough sense to accept responsibility for your own actions does not preclude someone from suing you. When things go wrong it is human nature to start looking for someone to blame. It has nothing to do with political leanings or any the rest of the stuff you are spewing.

 

I'm sorry. How, exactly, does a film can "lure" anyone anywhere?

A film can does not place a note in itself, hide and call it self a geocache. Geocaching as an activity attracts people who tend to get pretty obsessive. Knowing this, you might want to take this into account when if you are hiding caches in places where sensible people dare not tread. On the other hand, there is no reason why caches can't be hidden in dangerous places. If you put one on top of the Eiger, you won't really have to be concerned about unqualified people attempting to find it.

 

BTW, since you have never been to the cache you are using as an example, it is a poor choice because it is nothing like you how you are describing it.

Link to comment

It's hard to weigh in about the particular "case" that OP is talking about since there are no facts to reference, but I have a hard time with the idea of suing a cache owner if I get injured. Any time I hunt a cache I have the opportunity to stop if I feel like I'm in danger and turn around to head back to the car. If I twist an ankle or fall down a hill because I'm looking too hard at the GPS or trip over a root and take a header into poison ivy is that the CO's fault? Any cache that's placed outside carries an inherent risk any free thinking person should have the brain power to know if he/she is getting into a situation that is above that person's skill level. Accidents happen. That's why they're called accidents.

Link to comment

are you feeding a troll ?

or seriously trying to kill geocaching ?

or is common sense turned off ?

 

I personally seek thrils, cool and dangerous caches at special locations

where equipment and skils are needed, If I die or get hurt,

feel free to write on my grave stone : he died happy, and put a big smile on it too.

if you sit in your home all day long and newer get out,

you get old and sick and fat and die a terrible lonely death of borebon and missery,

or offcourse trolling forums is excesise too ?

Link to comment

[Liberals] truly believe the silliest things. And believe them with conviction.

Trying to discuss notions like personal accountability with them is going to get you naught but blank looks.

I believe both cache seekers and cache hiders should be personally accountable for their actions. I also believe cache hiders should warn people of significant non-obvious dangers that the hiders know about. I noticed a cache of yours had these warnings:

 

As you approach the island which holds the cache, please pick your landing spot with care. As the acronym in the title implies, this area is bristling with alligators, many of which are big enough to eat you. The island can get very mucky during the wet season, so you should plan on bringing a pair of sturdy shoes with you. Snakeboots would be best, as the island is prime water moccasin habitat. Maybe keep the boots inside your boat and don them after you land? Other things you should have include a pokey stick, long pants, a long sleeve shirt, paddle shoes, gloves, more water than you think you'll need, snackage, bug spray, sunblock, a cell phone, pain reliever, spare batteries and a good hat.

How very "liberal" of you to include these warnings.

 

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.

But in your analogy, the guy walking down the street would have to sue the person who built the street so close to the building, knowing full well the effects of gravity, and the chances that people would walk down the street, near the building, thereby subjecting themselves to being hit by anything on or near that building that might suddenly find itself subject to gravity.

I asked, "Why shouldn't the injured geocacher sue the cache owner for gross negligence?" Cx1 replied, "Because the cache owner did absolutely nothing to force anyone to try and find their cache." So I explained how people tossing cinder blocks off apartment balconies can act with gross negligence even if they don't force people to walk on the street below.

 

If you want something more analogous to geocaching, then imagine a contractor builds a private road, but the surface of the road is too close to a heating tunnel that runs below it. If the engineer knew the road was likely to collapse under the weight of a typical vehicle and cause serious damage to the vehicle and/or its occupants, then that contractor probably is grossly negligent...even though the contractor never forced anybody to drive on the road.

 

Randomly select 100 caches. My guess is that at least 99 of them will be in locations where there exists the possibility for injury. I would further guess that those 99 will fail to mention the possibility for injury. Sounds like gross negligence to me... Knowing about a potential hazard and refusing to post warnings about it...

Every cache I've visited has "the possibility for injury." I've never claimed otherwise. But that doesn't suit your argument, so you created a straw man to attack instead. Beating up a straw man only makes you look foolish.

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

I don't live in Texas... but now I'm getting nervous. I have a cache about 10 feet from the edge of a ravine. I warn people in the description about the drop and that it should not be hunted at night, but suddenly I have visions of lawsuits dancing in my head.

 

*sigh*

Nah, those visions are probably not lawsuite but sugar plums dancing in your head. Tis the season.

Link to comment

I don't live in Texas... but now I'm getting nervous. I have a cache about 10 feet from the edge of a ravine. I warn people in the description about the drop and that it should not be hunted at night, but suddenly I have visions of lawsuits dancing in my head.

 

*sigh*

 

I have several risky caches with deadly virticle drops nearby or within a few feet. Most have been listed for over 8 years, but it just takes 1 lawsuit happy idiot...

Link to comment

I think the 'Mainstream Event Horizon' has something to do with this.

Most (I hope and pray) old-timers would say 'My mistake, I should have been paying more attention/been more aware/done my research'.

Whereas the 'Just downloaded the app to my iPhone' crowd may be expecting a more sanitized experience, and might have no qualms about suing the pants off of anyone/everyone within range.

Link to comment

There is no need to drag this down by being argumentative just for the sake of being argumentative.

Contrary to your proclamation, I am not being argumentative just for the sake of being argumentative. I am explaining an alternative viewpoint. I recognize that I have hit a logic wall with you, as you can't seem to grasp very basic principals. Which, I assume, is why you opt for hyperbole, rather than posting relevant counter points.

 

When things go wrong it is human nature to start looking for someone to blame.

Actually, it is not "human" nature. It is a learned behavior. "Human" nature is to learn from your mistakes. That is how the evolution of our brains happened. You cannot learn from a mistake unless you take ownership of that mistake, realize it was a bad thing to do based on the consequences which occurred afterward, and decide not to do it again. Unfortunately, society will always be peopled with folks who are either unable or unwilling to take any responsibility for their own behavior, and threads like this one happen.

 

But I will grant you one point. You are right when you say I can be sued. As has been pointed out earlier, anyone can sue anyone else, for anything. You could file a lawsuit against me for improper grammar. Living in fear of a lawsuit is counterproductive. I would much rather live in fear of a successful lawsuit. These are the ones I am willing to avoid. You may live any life you wish.

 

A film can does not place a note in itself, hide and call it self a geocache.

Uh... Lemme see if I understand this. Are you claiming that, if I take a film can, stuff in a scrap of paper, hide it somewhere and call it a geocache, a reasonable and prudent person would not be able to resist hunting for it regardless of where I place it? You do know that "reasonable and prudent" are the two basic standards by which all behavior is measured in civil litigation, right? A person cannot be held accountable for actions which had a negative impact on an unreasonable person. For instance, if I were to hide a cache in an area bristling with alligators, and offer no warnings about those critters, and someone took every reasonable and prudent precaution for the situation as presented, I could possibly be held liable for any injuries they incur. However, if that person were to leap out of their canoe and commence pummeling a 14' alligator with a pool noodle, I probably would not be liable for their injuries.

 

If you can convince me that a reasonable and prudent person suddenly looses their ability for sound judgement, just because another person tossed a scrap of paper into a film can, you might have a valid argument for your theory that caches "lure" people to their deaths. Otherwise, you are just making noise.

 

BTW, since you have never been to the cache you are using as an example, it is a poor choice because it is nothing like you how you are describing it.

 

Then why did you describe it that way? I took the words "knife-edged ridge" and "descends quite rapidly" directly from your cache page. In the event you forgot what you wrote when you typed that page, you can read your cache page here. Are you now claiming you misled folks in your cache description? I would think that doing that would open you up to liability.

Link to comment
I also believe cache hiders should warn people of significant non-obvious dangers that the hiders know about.

Agreed. I'll go a step further and say, in my opinion, a cache hider should offer warnings of both obvious and non-obvious dangers. Not for fear of liability. But rather, because I think it's the right thing to do. Most of my active hides are in places where an unprepared person could be seriously injured or killed. Since I would hate to own a cache where somebody died, either from unexpected circumstances or from their own stupidity, I offer what warnings I can.

 

How very "liberal" of you to include these warnings.

Thanx! :)

 

so you created a Straw man.

Wow. You equate me hiding a film can in a hedge with someone hurling a cinder block out of a window of a tall building, and I'm the one building and attacking straw men? Really? I gotta say, I really have a tough time believing that you actually believe that. I think you've reached a point in this debate where you know your argument in inherently flawed, and your ego will not let you admit it. So instead, you make irrational claims like this.

44a5f07a-ddb8-4c80-8fd9-62544bc414a5.jpg?rnd=0.4789349

Link to comment

So if I just put a disclaimer on all future caches I hide that says "Don't attempt this cache..."

This is a copy/paste of the hint on one of my caches:

The only reasonable advice I can give you is to avoid this cache. It can kill you. Seriously. If you ignore this advice, and hunt the cache anyway, this might help: <Details removed for brevity> :ph34r::lol:

Link to comment

There is no need to drag this down by being argumentative just for the sake of being argumentative.

Contrary to your proclamation, I am not being argumentative just for the sake of being argumentative. I am explaining an alternative viewpoint. I recognize that I have hit a logic wall with you, as you can't seem to grasp very basic principals. Which, I assume, is why you opt for hyperbole, rather than posting relevant counter points.

I don't know why you have a such a burr under your saddle, but it seems to have affected your reading comprehension. The logic wall you are referring to is the result of you trying to shoehorn bits and pieces of what i've said into your preconceived narrative.

 

I shouldn't have to explain this to you, because it should be obvious that i not advocating in favor of suing someone over a geocache. I cant imagine any circumstances in which I would do such a thing, however, I can imagine someone else doing it, It has allegedly already happened. All I am saying is that it works both ways: you need to be take responsibility both as seeker and a hider. Geocaches are not little entities that you set loose to make their way in the world and they don't just appear spontaneously. You hide them in a place of your choosing. Now, if you want to argue that your responsibility ends there, fine. It's not very consistent, but that's your prerogative.

 

If you can convince me that a reasonable and prudent person suddenly looses their ability for sound judgement, just because another person tossed a scrap of paper into a film can..

LOL. Apparently you haven't been around other geocachers enough. Obvious example: E.T. Highway

 

I'm in bed with the flu, so I'm not really up for the cage fight you seem to be yearning for, and besides, it's Christmas.

 

Chill out dude, Merry Christmas.

 

P.S. trawling profiles is kind of creepy. Don't do that.

Link to comment

 

I think Texas is messed up.

 

If the plaintiff "loses" he should ALWAYS pay the other person's legal fee's.

Uh... Are there any states in this Union where the loser is always required to pay the winner's legal fees?

 

The CO should have won this case. Texas law didn't give him the option to.

If you don't mind, could you expound upon that pearl of wisdom? Since you appear ready to render a verdict, I can only assume you know all the facts of the case, as well as the applicable case law regarding each facet of the incident in question. Since you do know the facts, and presumably are not under the same gag order which the OP claims is keeping him silent, could you tell us what happened? As to Texas law not giving him a chance, can you explain that concept as well? If this case was resolved in the manner TGC claimed, it was settled out of court. The CO would have had to be a willing participant in such a settlement. How, exactly, did Texas law strip the CO of that particular right of due process?

 

If he had lost the case, he'd have to pay the lawyer fee's, which is presumably a few thousand dollars, plus the compensation money.

 

If he had won the case, he wouldn't have to pay compensation, but he'd have to pay the presumed thousands in lawyer fee's.

 

Sometimes it's cheaper and better to settle out of court.

 

If Texas wasn't such a crappy state, they'd make the defendant pay legal fee's assuming he lost. This would prevent "abuse" of the system. (I stated how it could be abused in my previous post).

 

The way it is now, you make the defendant lose before it even begin, "winning" the trial means nothing. What matter's is how much money you'll have to pay. It that case the previous statement is correct. Nobody wants to prove a point (And spend thousands doing so) people just want to move on the quickest AND cheapest way available.

Link to comment

I think the 'Mainstream Event Horizon' has something to do with this.

Most (I hope and pray) old-timers would say 'My mistake, I should have been paying more attention/been more aware/done my research'.

Whereas the 'Just downloaded the app to my iPhone' crowd may be expecting a more sanitized experience, and might have no qualms about suing the pants off of anyone/everyone within range.

 

You see it too.

 

I have been thinking the same thing. I don't feel like going through all of my posts, but sometime before I started the Mainstream Event Horizon thread (way before smartphones existed) I warned of lawsuits aplenty when we arrived at that point. I expressed doubt that GS as it existed then could handle it advising that if it were me, I'd sell out, retire, and laugh all the way to the bank rather than deal with that hassle. I also reversed that opinion after visiting GS HQ.

 

I don't think we're there yet. My spider sense is hovering near 3 million caches listed before we go hulahoop/CB Radio/roller skates.

 

If we don't get our act together NOW there will be lawsuits and news of lawsuits. If too many COs get sucessfully shaken down this period of huge growth will all but cease and the acceleration will go in the other direction. Buh-bye huge listing service. Hello livingroom server in just a few years.

 

How many folks reading this thread would archive their caches in a hurry if the scenario I just outlined were to occurr close to home after hearing news of it happening in other areas? :unsure:

 

BTW Groundspeak knows that I have already had a threat of a lawsuit, but the person threatening the lawsuit lacked credibility and was in fact a cacher who was banned under another user name. (He is well known and missed by some in the OT forum too.) I caught him in a lie and his witness pulled the ejection handle and distanced himself so fast it was comical.

 

If someone threatens to sue me again and the threat lasts longer than the few hours the last one did, I'll archive all my caches and you know I won't be quiet about it. I won't quit caching, but I will quit contributing.

Link to comment
I shouldn't have to explain this to you, because it should be obvious that i not advocating in favor of suing someone over a geocache.

You are correct. You shouldn't have to explain that to me. But not because it is obvious. It's not. Determining someone's preference for civil litigation takes some fairly in depth study of that person. There really is no way to determine this without a fairly exhaustive study. Since we have never met, I have no way of knowing if you are lawsuit happy or not. Though I will say, based on your posts, you don't seem to be. The reason you should not have to explain this to me is because doing so would be irrelevant for this conversation. The reason it would be irrelevant is because I have never even so much as hinted at you being lawsuit happy.

 

You hide them in a place of your choosing.

Correct again! That's two for two! You're getting pretty good at this. As you mentioned, when most folks hide a geocache, they do so at a spot they selected. Once it has been submitted, reviewed and found to be in compliance with the guidelines, it gets published. At that point, other folks have access to the cache data, and make a conscious decision to either hunt for the cache or pass it by.

 

Now, if you want to argue that your responsibility ends there, fine. It's not very consistent, but that's your prerogative.

 

While I would never make such an argument, I can certainly understand why you might want to allege that this is my view. Twisting the facts in this manner can make your side of the debate appear more valid to those who are not paying attention. On the off chance that you are actually interested in my thoughts on the matter, (as opposed to simply wanting to argue), I will share them, again. It is my belief that the cache owner's responsibility does not end with the hide. I personally believe that a conscientious cache owner will take the time to list what dangers they are aware of near ground zero, so future seekers can make an informed decision regarding the conditions they will face during a hunt. I also believe that a cache owner should ensure that any cache they place is in a location where it is legal for others to follow. I also believe that, should conditions change at ground zero, with regards to hazards and/or permission, it is the cache owner's duty to take appropriate action.

 

Apparently you haven't been around other geocachers enough. Obvious example: E.T. Highway

Yeah. I must be a n00b. Though I've been caching 1.5 years longer than you have, found more caches than you have, hidden more caches than you have, attended more events than you have, hosted more events than you have, got selected by my peers as the Central Florida Rep for the Florida Geocaching Association, worked directly with the land managers of Seminole County Natural Lands assisting them in developing their geocache policy, am on a first name basis with the land managers of the St John's River Water Management District, and am an official volunteer for the Little Big Econ State Forest and the Charles Bronson State Forest, tasked with checking proposed cache placement sites to ensure they are in compliance with DOF regulations, it's obvious I haven't spent enough time around other geocachers... :rolleyes:

 

As for the E.T. Highway, you'll notice that my name is not on any of those logs. Those film cans still have not "lured" me into such a monotonous journey. If I ever do make the trip out there, I can assure you the decision will be entirely mine, and not subject to outside influence. I do know a few of the folks who have made the journey, and from speaking with them, I think it's safe to say that they also made the decision to hunt those caches free from any uncontrollable urges. They made it clear that they "chose" to make the trip. They were not "lured" into it.

 

Merry Christmas.

Blessed Solstice! :)

Link to comment
If Texas wasn't such a crappy state, they'd make the defendant pay legal fee's assuming he lost.

Thank you for your reply! :)

I appreciate you sharing your extensive knowledge of the civil court system. But you really didn't answer any of my questions. Presumably because they were not clear enough? My first question was in regards to how much Texas "sucks", because in that state, the losers of lawsuits are not required to pay the winner's legal fees. Since you singled out Texas, placing it pretty low on the suckiness scale, I assume there are states that do not work this way, and therefor, do not "suck". Could you tell me which states these are? Specifically, how many states force the loser of a lawsuit to pay the winner's legal fees? I ask because I wasn't aware of any that did this, as a standard operating procedure. I know that in most states, (including Texas), there are methods available for a Judge to issue such binding legal judgements, but these are typically overturned by higher courts. As far as I know, there is not a single court district that requires the losers to recompense the winners.

 

Please take a moment to educate me.

 

My second question was in regards to how Texas law prevented the defendant winning the case. I was hoping you could explain that rather odd precedent. I was not there, but what experience I do have tells me that the defendant was most certainly part of the process that got this resolved before it reached a Jury. Had the defendant refused to settle out of court, it would have gone to trial. I am really unclear on how Texas law kept him from winning this case, and I look forward to you educating me on that as well.

 

My third question is regarding the specifics of the case. As an expert such as yourself knows, the gag order imposed by the Judge only applied to those who were actively participating in the process, and even for them, it only prohibits the naming of the litigants and revealing the terms of the settlement. It has nothing to do with the actual details of the case. Since you are familiar enough with the case to state, conclusively, that the defendant should have prevailed, I was hoping you could share those details with us. Inquiring minds really do want to know. These details could really help us determine just how much liability we each assume when we hide a cache.

 

Thanx! :)

Link to comment

OK, so now we've circled back around to:

 

There is no need to drag this down by being argumentative just for the sake of being argumentative.

If you want to continue tilting at windmills, Sir Rifster, I suggest we retire from this thread and re-engage via private courier where we would have the full arsenal at our disposal. I should warn you, however, that I am an expert swordsman.

Edited by B+L
Link to comment

so you created a Straw man.

Wow. You equate me hiding a film can in a hedge with someone hurling a cinder block out of a window of a tall building, and I'm the one building and attacking straw men?

Yes, you attacked a straw man. Below is my quotation and your response. I've restored the bold information in my quotation that you had omitted.

 

Randomly select 100 caches. My guess is that at least 99 of them will not be... ...in locations where "the cache owner was aware of [a] danger and knew it was likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to someone, but they did nothing to warn of the danger."

Randomly select 100 caches. My guess is that at least 99 of them will be in locations where there exists the possibility for injury. I would further guess that those 99 will fail to mention the possibility for injury. Sounds like gross negligence to me... Knowing about a potential hazard and refusing to post warnings about it...

I'm saying that the overwhelming majority of caches are unlikely to rise to a level where the cache hider is grossly negligent.

 

My position is rather difficult to deny, so you omitted the part about "grave injury or harm." Instead, you opted to redefine "gross negligence" to be when "there exists the possibility for injury" (i.e., every cache in the world). You created a straw man to attack.

 

It reminds me of the bad toupee analogy. You might think beating up a straw man makes you look good, but it really just makes people laugh at you.

 

And I never equated your hiding a film can in a hedge with someone hurling a cinder block out of a window of a tall building. In my first post to this discussion (Post #21), I asked, "Why shouldn't the injured geocacher sue the cache owner for gross negligence?" Cx1 replied, "Because the cache owner did absolutely nothing to force anyone to try and find their cache." So I explained how people tossing cinder blocks off apartment balconies are still responsible for their actions even when nobody forces people to walk on the street below.

 

Car manufacturers don't need to force people to drive their vehicles to be guilty of gross negligence. Construction companies don't need to force people to enter the buildings they erect to be guilty of gross negligence. And cache owners don't need to force geocachers to search for caches they hide to be guilty of gross negligence.

Link to comment

If Texas wasn't such a crappy state, they'd make the defendant pay legal fee's assuming he lost. This would prevent "abuse" of the system.

If you'd like to continue participating in these forum discussions, I will thank you in advance for refraining from applying pejorative labels to other states or countries. People from the Great State of Texas read these forums, too.

 

This is especially true because you come from Pennsylvania, whose laws on attorney fee recovery are no different. Consider moving from that crappy state to a "loser pays" jurisdiction like England.

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...