FYI about caching Safety & being a CO

[+cx1]

 

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.

 

I am going to pop back in here to give one last attempt at explaining why your examples are not on point.

The cinder block tosser can not be equated to a cache owner.

The cinder block tosser is preforming a direct action which causes harm to a second party. The cache owner's only direct act was to place and list the cache. The cache owner's direct act caused no harm to anyone.

Using the example you began with the cinder block tosser is more directly related to the toxic waste (or perhaps the producer of the toxic waste).

Car manufactures and construction companies are held to different standards then a private individual. There are governmental rules and regulations that they must comply with because they are selling their products and services. A vast number of these rules and regulations deal directly with consumer safety. Car companies must certify that the vehicles they produce to sell meet or exceed all current safety standards for the industry.

An example relating to this:

Studies have shown that side-curtain air bags can reduce injuries and fatalities in automobile accidents. Automobile manufactures are aware of these studies. Yet you can not sue Ford because the particular model of vehicle you purchased did not include the optional side-impact air bags. Why? because the side impact bags are not yet an industry standard requirement. There are no safety standards for placing geocaches.

Construction companies must deal with State and local inspectors, apply for and comply with permits and building regulation standards many of which again deal directly with safety.

Goecaches have no standards for safety.

Caches owners are not paid to provide cache placement services. Adding monetary compensation completely changes the standards one must operate under.

Comparing cache owners who are not paid for services and have no governmental regulations regarding safety with corporations which are paid for services and do have governmental regulations fails completely as a valid argument for suing cache owners. It is like comparing apples and tennis shoes.

[+CanadianRockies]

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.

The cinder block tosser can not be equated to a cache owner.

Did you read the statement you quoted above? I'm not equating a cinder block tosser with a cache owner. Instead, I'm pointing out that neither have to force anybody to do anything in order to be found guilty of gross negligence.

 

Car manufactures and construction companies are held to different standards then a private individual. There are governmental rules and regulations that they must comply with because they are selling their products and services.

First, car manufacturers and construction companies can still be found guilty of gross negligence even if they give away their products for free.

 

Second, they can be found guilty of gross negligence even if they meet every governmental rule and regulation on the books. Just because I meet exhaust emission standards doesn't mean I can install cruise controls that I know are likely to catch fire.

 

Caches owners are not paid to provide cache placement services. Adding monetary compensation completely changes the standards one must operate under.

Not when it comes to gross negligence.

Edited December 25, 2011 by CanadianRockies

[Clan Riffster]

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.

(sigh...)

Looks like were back to hiding a cache is tantamount to tossing a brick...

Even though hiding a cache is viewed by the general public, (who are familiar with the hobby), as a benign act, while tossing a brick out of a window, whilst passersby wander below, is clearly a malignant act. In one hand, you have an apple. In the other, you have a wallaby. Yet you insist that they are the same, and those who point out the error of your ways are building, then visiting violence upon, scarecrows. (Remember that line from the movie?) You might have a better time arguing that hiding a cache, in a hazardous location, where Joe Public is not allowed to go, then fabricating permission for your hide, while failing to make future seekers aware of the hazards which you know about, could, conceivably equate to someone raining bricks down on the heads of unsuspecting pedestrians.

 

Folks might actually listen to you then...

 

Just sayin'.

[Clan Riffster]

I am going to pop back in here to give one last attempt at explaining why your examples are not on point.

Why? You are not operating on the same wavelength as him.

He is not receiving your transmission.

No rational explanation is going to change that.

[+cx1]

 

Did you read the statement you quoted above? I'm not equating a cinder block tosser with a cache owner. Instead, I'm pointing out that neither have to force anybody to do anything in order to be found guilty of gross negligence.

 

I do not understand why you insist on sticking with this point.

 

The direct actions of the brick tosser the car maker and the construction company in all your examples are what cause the harm or grave injury or likely whatever damage you will to call it this time.

 

The direct actions of the cache owner by placing or listing a cache do not cause harm or injury.

 

You can not compare the two. They are dissimilar circumstances. Use an example of similar circumstance.

 

Second, they can be found guilty of gross negligence even if they meet every governmental rule and regulation on the books. Just because I meet exhaust emission standards doesn't mean I can install cruise controls that I know are likely to catch fire.

There are huge standards for cruise controls. They take direct control of the acceleration of the vehicle. So again a poor example. But even using cruise control as the poor example it is, the way I am seeing your position would be as follows...

You turn your cruise control on.

You set your cruise control for 55 MPH (or 88kph if that floats your boat).

You drive your car off the road without attempting to use the brakes or take any other measures to disable the cruise control(this equates to not using common sense when seeking a cache in case you are not following) and you end up injuring yourself.

You feel it is proper to sue Ford because the cruise control did not magically shut itself off nor did it prevent you from steering yourself off the road.

[+Coldgears]

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.

 

I didn't mean the state was crappy. I think the state is beautiful, I meant the legal system was "crappy".

 

I retract my statement however. Seeing as pretty much every state, including mine, has the same law.

 

I still disagree with it though; maybe seeing it's success in England states will follow and add that law?'

 

One can hope...

 

Still, when all is said and done, I believe he would have won the trial. It's in the TOS that you take all responsibility for your actions while geocaching.

 

He agreed to the TOS.

 

The only one who should be sued is the land manager, and it was public land... So...

 

Honestly. Sometimes there is no one to blame. Crap happens, if you don't have insurance, you can't just go around suing people.

 

For example, a cousin of mine nearly died. She was getting a root canal... And then... Guess what? The Virginia earthquake happened. Her jaw is ruined, beyond repair.

 

She could attempt to sue the doctor for not taking every precaution in case there was an earthquake, she could attempt to sue the company that hires the doctors for not putting up warning signs that there *could* be an earthquake.

 

However, these would be ridiculous lawsuits. There is no one to blame. Stuff happens.

 

I think that it should be self-explanatory that stuff can happen at any moment. He could have had a heart attack because he set his alarm early to get to the cache. He could have gotten injured slipping on the ice on the way out the door. He could have gotten injured in a car crash on the way to the cache. He could have been shot during a robbery of Dunkin Donuts while he stopped to pick up breakfast.

 

Can he sue over these? If no, than why not? If the cache had not been placed, he wouldn't have gone out to get the cache. He presumably would not have been hurt. Same goes for searching for the cache a half mile closer.

 

He wanted cash, plain and simple. Maybe he deserved it, maybe he needed compensation for his injury. I don't doubt that, nor do I blame him for it. However, in that case it is HIS fault for not buying insurance.

[+CanadianRockies]

You're wrong to say that a cache hider has to force someone to find their cache to be guilty of gross negligence. From Post #28:

 

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.

In Post #36, I explained that a person can be guilty of gross negligence without forcing anyone to do anything.

 

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.

You're wrong to say that a cache hider has to force someone to find their cache to be guilty of gross negligence. I'm not sure how I can make it any plainer than that.

 

But even using cruise control as the poor example it is, the way I am seeing your position would be as follows...

You turn your cruise control on.

You set your cruise control for 55 MPH (or 88kph if that floats your boat).

You drive your car off the road without attempting to use the brakes or take any other measures to disable the cruise control(this equates to not using common sense when seeking a cache in case you are not following) and you end up injuring yourself.

You feel it is proper to sue Ford because the cruise control did not magically shut itself off nor did it prevent you from steering yourself off the road.

Once again, you're wrong. I do not feel it is proper to sue because the cruise control did not magically shut itself off. When did I ever say that? I clearly spelled out my position on cruise controls in Post #42:

 

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.

It's interesting that you should mention Ford, since they were the company that issued the biggest recall in automotive history (at least at one point in time), and they did so because their cruise controls sometimes caught fire:

 

In February of 2008, Ford issued the industry’s largest-ever recall, affecting Lincoln and Mercury SUVs, pickups, cars, and vans of model years ’93 to ’04. The lowly cruise-control switch was behind this mother-of-all do-overs. It had a nasty habit of catching fire, sometimes hours after the vehicle had been parked and turned off.

Edited December 25, 2011 by CanadianRockies

[+CanadianRockies]

I think that it should be self-explanatory that stuff can happen at any moment.

Yes, stuff can happen at any moment. Sometimes, there's little or nothing one can do to reduce the likelihood that this stuff will happen. At other times, however, there are things one can do to reduce the likelihood that this stuff will happen.

 

Suppose a dentist parties all night before walking into their office dead tired and legally drunk. In this case, do you think they should perform a root canal? If they do and leave someone terribly injured because of their impaired state, then do you think a lawsuit would be inappropriate? Or would you simply toss up your hands and declare, "Stuff happens."

 

Of course, there are all sorts of situations that fall between your extreme and mine. One reason we have courts is to carefully examine these situations, determine who is responsible, and determine how much responsibility they bear.

 

We don't know the details of the Texas case. It's possible the cache hider bore no responsibility, but it's also possible the cache hider bore some responsibility. It's even possible that this case never took place.

 

Nor do we know the reasons why the plaintiff sued. Maybe "he wanted cash, plain and simple," as you assert, but I've seen no evidence of this. Perhaps you'd care to share the evidence you have before further impugning someone's motives.

Edited December 25, 2011 by CanadianRockies

[+uxorious]

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.

 

If the cache hider knows the dangers are LIKELY to cause death, they might be in line for a negligent homocide charge! If the hider knows the cache could be dangerous, even to the point of serious injury or death, assuming someone does not use due care, that is a whole different argument.

 

If I know of a danger, I should include a warning of it in my cache page. The greater the danger the more the warning may be needed, but I don't think I should be held responsable if you decide to try for a cache you are not capable of.

 

However, if the cache is "likely" to cause injury or death, if would be wrong to list it at all.

 

Your attitude that someone getting injured needs to sue, is part of the problem with this country today.

[+Coldgears]

Maybe "he wanted cash, plain and simple," as you assert, but I've seen no evidence of this.

He sued for monetary compensation. I believe the motive is obvious.

[+uxorious]

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.

 

I've been thinking about this. You have this a little wrong in the way it fits this discussion.

 

Lets assume you are walking down the street to reach a corner store.(the cache) Someone tosses bricks off a building (the danger). If a brick hits you, you would try to sue the store owner, as he has placed his store there to lure you down the side walk.

 

Lets assume for a minute, instead of someone throwing bricks, it is just an old building, and bricks have fallen before. The store, which, by the way, is in a legal spot, and has permission from the city to do business, runs an ad. In the ad they make no mention of the building with falling bricks. The ad lures you to the store. By your way of convoluted thinking, you will be able to sue the store owner. After all he knew of the danger and didn't warn you.

[+Coldgears]

 

Lets assume for a minute, instead of someone throwing bricks, it is just an old building, and bricks have fallen before. The store, which, by the way, is in a legal spot, and has permission from the city to do business, runs an ad. In the ad they make no mention of the building with falling bricks. The ad lures you to the store. By your way of convoluted thinking, you will be able to sue the store owner. After all he knew of the danger and didn't warn you.

The perfect analogy. Truly flawless. Thank you.

[+CanadianRockies]

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.

If the cache hider knows the dangers are LIKELY to cause death, they might be in line for a negligent homocide charge! If the hider knows the cache could be dangerous, even to the point of serious injury or death, assuming someone does not use due care, that is a whole different argument.

Yes, in some jurisdictions, certain serious cases of negligence can rise to the level of criminally negligent homicide/manslaughter. But it still comes back to negligent behavior rather than "a whole different argument."

 

If I know of a danger, I should include a warning of it in my cache page. The greater the danger the more the warning may be needed, but I don't think I should be held responsable if you decide to try for a cache you are not capable of.

Yes, if you've warned of the danger, then I suspect your liability generally will be significantly reduced and perhaps even eliminated. It depends on the situation and jurisdiction.

 

However, if the cache is "likely" to cause injury or death, if would be wrong to list it at all.

Yes, I agree. At least a couple moderators and/or reviewers have noted, however, that danger alone will not preclude a cache from being published (or archived if it already is published). However, I strongly suspect that if a reviewer and/or Groundspeak would be liable for gross negligence, then they would not publish the cache or leave it activated.

 

Your attitude that someone getting injured needs to sue, is part of the problem with this country today.

But that's not my attitude. My attitude is that cache hiders are not above the law and people should be allowed to sue cache hiders if they commit gross negligence. People should be responsible for their actions...including cache hiders. Please reread my Post #21:

 

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?

Edited December 25, 2011 by CanadianRockies

[+GeoBain]

Maybe "he wanted cash, plain and simple," as you assert, but I've seen no evidence of this.

He sued for monetary compensation. I believe the motive is obvious.

 

So what is it?

[Clan Riffster]

I still disagree with it though; maybe seeing it's success in England states will follow and add that law?'

Are you sure that the system in England is a resounding success for the average Joe? Strictly hypothetical question... Presume you bought a Ford, and your brake pedal pad, (the rubber slip on part that affixes to the lever), slid off, reducing your ability to slow your car. You crash, causing some scrapes and bruises to yourself. One of the scrapes leaves a scar.

 

You now have a permanent disfigurement on your body, presumably caused, at least in part, by Ford failing to design a brake pedal pad that would not slip off. Let us also presume that you are the only one to come forward with such a complaint, though we don't know if your brake pedal pad was the only one that failed. We've already established that you can sue Ford. Heck, most folks would likely agree that Ford was at least partly to blame. My question to you is, could you win such a lawsuit? While you might have some David & Goliath fantasy roaming around in your head, it is at this point that reality rears it's ugly head. I'm not sure what your financial status is, but assuming you are an average guy, you will show up with one lawyer, who graduated from a fairly decent law school, and may have worked on a similar case in the past. Ford will show up with a couple dozen lawyers, who graduated in the upper tiers of their Harvard and Yale classes, and have a couple hundred years combined experience in such lawsuits.

 

Your lawyer will be outclassed before he ever files his first motion.

 

You will almost certainly lose if you push it all the way to trial.

 

Ford would have little incentive to settle out of court, as they know, from past cases, that if they lose, the jury is unlikely to award you more than $10,000 for your scar, and Ford would have to pay a few thousand extra to cover your legal fees. Whereas, if they win, they pay nothing, and you are left paying the legal fees for a couple dozen legal hotshots who bill %500 an hour.

 

Since you would know, going in, that losing such a lawsuit could cost you upwards of a quarter million dollars, and that Ford's team of lawyers is much, much better than your lawyer, are you, the average Joe, likely to even file such a lawsuit?

 

Life is not fair. Neither are lawsuits.

 

Be careful what you wish for.

 

Corporate America would absolutely love having such a law in place.

[+CanadianRockies]

Lets assume you are walking down the street to reach a corner store.(the cache) Someone tosses bricks off a building (the danger). If a brick hits you, you would try to sue the store owner, as he has placed his store there to lure you down the side walk.

As Yogi Berra might say, "It's déjà vu all over again."

 

It's wrong to say that a cache hider has to force someone to find their cache to be guilty of gross negligence. From Post #28:

 

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.

In Post #36, I explained that a person can be guilty of gross negligence without forcing anyone to do anything.

 

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.

It's wrong to say that a cache hider has to force someone to find their cache to be guilty of gross negligence. I'm not sure how I can make it any plainer than that.

[+GeoBain]

Lets assume for a minute, instead of someone throwing bricks, it is just an old building, and bricks have fallen before. The store, which, by the way, is in a legal spot, and has permission from the city to do business, runs an ad. In the ad they make no mention of the building with falling bricks. The ad lures you to the store. By your way of convoluted thinking, you will be able to sue the store owner. After all he knew of the danger and didn't warn you.

 

IANAL, but I imagine you would likely wind up in a lawsuit; especially if you actually owned the building.

 

Not for the ad, but for not repairing the bricks or reporting it to the owner of the building.

 

Same as if I know I have a tree on my property with rot and do not take care of that tree. If it falls over on my neighbor's house, I am liable for the damage.

 

However, if I have a tree with no apparent damage and a storm blows it over on my neighbor's house, I likely would not be legally responsible for the damage.

 

At least that's what Judge Judy said.

[+cx1]

 

But that's not my attitude. My attitude is that cache hiders are not above the law and people should be allowed to sue cache hiders if they commit gross negligence. People should be responsible for their actions...including cache hiders. :

 

The discussion is about cache owners and their legal responsibility. You state they should be responsible if they commit gross negligence.

 

Fine, show how they they can follow the posting guidelines and still commit gross negligence.

 

Don't bring in automakers, crazy people with bricks or construction companies to be examples. Make your examples directly about caches and cache owners. Make your examples about how a completely benign action such as legally placing and listing a cache can be construed as gross negligence.

You have even moved away from your own toxic waste dump idea which was the closest you've been to being on point since this topic began. Now you just seem to be grasping at straws to defend your position that it is perfectly ok to sue cache owners by citing completely unrelated examples of gross negligence in areas far removed from cache ownership.

Lets assume for a minute, instead of someone throwing bricks, it is just an old building, and bricks have fallen before. The store, which, by the way, is in a legal spot, and has permission from the city to do business, runs an ad. In the ad they make no mention of the building with falling bricks. The ad lures you to the store. By your way of convoluted thinking, you will be able to sue the store owner. After all he knew of the danger and didn't warn you.

Beautiful example, I wonder why CanadianRockies completely ignored it.

[+uxorious]

Lets assume for a minute, instead of someone throwing bricks, it is just an old building, and bricks have fallen before. The store, which, by the way, is in a legal spot, and has permission from the city to do business, runs an ad. In the ad they make no mention of the building with falling bricks. The ad lures you to the store. By your way of convoluted thinking, you will be able to sue the store owner. After all he knew of the danger and didn't warn you.

 

IANAL, but I imagine you would likely wind up in a lawsuit; especially if you actually owned the building.

 

Not for the ad, but for not repairing the bricks or reporting it to the owner of the building.

 

Same as if I know I have a tree on my property with rot and do not take care of that tree. If it falls over on my neighbor's house, I am liable for the damage.

 

However, if I have a tree with no apparent damage and a storm blows it over on my neighbor's house, I likely would not be legally responsible for the damage.

 

At least that's what Judge Judy said.

 

Please reread my post, I did not say the store owner owned the building, nor has anything to do with it other than being on the same street it is on. I think it is obvious the owner of the building could be sued, but why the store owner. Because he didn't tell the building owner? Not his responsablity.

 

By your example, if I knew a tree on your property was rotten and I didn't tell you. If it fell on a neighbor's property, I could be sued???? I know this is a sue happy country, but I don't think it is that bad yet.

[+CanadianRockies]

My attitude is that cache hiders are not above the law and people should be allowed to sue cache hiders if they commit gross negligence. People should be responsible for their actions...including cache hiders.

The discussion is about cache owners and their legal responsibility. You state they should be responsible if they commit gross negligence.

 

Fine, show how they they can follow the posting guidelines and still commit gross negligence.

Suppose you hide a cache on public land near unstable ground that easily could collapse under the weight of a typical adult, causing them to fall 20 feet into a cave below. You're aware of this hidden danger and the injuries that someone easily could suffer. There are no warning signs posted in the area, and you provide no warnings on the cache's listing page.

 

As far as I know, this meets Groundspeak's guidelines. As far as I know, you could be liable for gross negligence if you hid such a cache. If it is gross negligence, then I'd have no problem if you were sued by a cache seeker who broke through the surface, fell into that cave, and was seriously injured.

 

I don't believe cache hiders should be above the law. Do you? I believe cache hiders (like cache seekers) should be responsible for their actions. Do you?

[+cx1]

 

Same as if I know I have a tree on my property with rot and do not take care of that tree. If it falls over on my neighbor's house, I am liable for the damage.

 

However, if I have a tree with no apparent damage and a storm blows it over on my neighbor's house, I likely would not be legally responsible for the damage.

 

At least that's what Judge Judy said.

 

I will try to tie this into the way it appears CanadianRockies is defending the sue the cache owner idea.

 

I am your neighbor. I have talked to you and now have knowledge that the tree in your yard has some issues and could be dangerous.

A few weeks later I decide to have a yard sale(lets call this placing a cache). I advertise on Craig's List and put up flyers(lets call this listing the cache).

Someone(lets call them Edna) while trying to come to my yard sale gets hit while on the public sidewalk by a falling piece of your tree.

CanadianRockies wants Edna to sue me because I was grossly negligent by not warning Edna(nor anyone else) about your tree.

[ZeMartelo]

Some folks here are joking and brushing with the idea that a cache owner could be sued for negligence...

The only answer I have to these folks that think it wont happen is to just sit and wait... it might come sooner then they expect.

[+cx1]

 

Suppose you hide a cache on public land near unstable ground that easily could collapse under the weight of a typical adult, causing them to fall 20 feet into a cave below. You're aware of this hidden danger and the injuries that someone easily could suffer. There are no warning signs posted in the area, and you provide no warnings on the cache's listing page.

 

This is a much better example to discuss, thank you for that. But I have a couple of questions.

 

So the government is the land owner correct? Public land means the same in Canada as what I am taking it to mean here? Land that is owned and controlled by a government agency and open to the public for recreational use.

 

Now there is a cave system of some type under this public ground, or much more common around here would be old tunnels and such from mining done in the area years and years ago. There are also some hidden springs that produce underground streams that could collapse. But anyway no matter the reason there are these voids underground that could collapse.

 

Yet the governmental agency is either unconcerned or unaware of these voids because they have opened the land for public use?

 

Now how would you show that the cache owner was aware of these voids and knew of the dangerous potential of these voids?

 

Would it matter if the cache owner knew the voids were there but did not think they were dangerous?

 

Clearly the cache owner was able to successfully traverse the dangerous area in some fashion without falling to their death 20 feet below while placing the cache. If the cache owner took no special precautions and was able to do this why would the cache owner assume that the next person along would not also be able to do this?

 

I admit that I am taking liberty with your scenario since it was not stated how the cache was placed. You could be taking the position that the cache owner dropped the cache from a helicopter to avoid the danger (this has been done in the past at least once that I am aware of).

[+cx1]

Some folks here are joking and brushing with the idea that a cache owner could be sued for negligence...

The only answer I have to these folks that think it wont happen is to just sit and wait... it might come sooner then they expect.

 

Please understand it is not that I believe that this type of lawsuit can't happen or won't happen. My position is that it should not happen. There is a distinct difference.

I am also horrified when actual participants in this activity of geocaching are seeming to be encouraging it to happen.

[+CanadianRockies]

Suppose you hide a cache on public land near unstable ground that easily could collapse under the weight of a typical adult, causing them to fall 20 feet into a cave below. You're aware of this hidden danger and the injuries that someone easily could suffer. There are no warning signs posted in the area, and you provide no warnings on the cache's listing page.

So the government is the land owner correct?

Yes.

 

Yet the governmental agency is either unconcerned or unaware of these voids because they have opened the land for public use?

The government agency is aware of the voids and even has posted warning signs about similar dangers elsewhere on their land. Just not near the cache and its hidden danger. Nor are there signs along the route from the nearby parking area to the cache area. Let's assume that, except for sovereign immunity, the public land owner also would be liable for gross negligence.

 

Now how would you show that the cache owner was aware of these voids and knew of the dangerous potential of these voids?

He told several people that he knew about them, but not the cache seeker who was injured. Also, at the deposition phase of a lawsuit, he will tell the truth and admit he knew about the danger.

 

Would it matter if the cache owner knew the voids were there but did not think they were dangerous?

Quite likely. In this case, however, the cache hider knew that falling through the void would likely cause grave injuries or death.

 

Clearly the cache owner was able to successfully traverse the dangerous area in some fashion without falling to their death 20 feet below while placing the cache. If the cache owner took no special precautions and was able to do this why would the cache owner assume that the next person along would not also be able to do this?

There are safe routes to the cache and dangerous routes to the cache. The hider knew about the hidden danger, so he took a safe route. Most seekers wouldn't know about the hidden danger, so they likely would take the convenient, dangerous route.

 

I have a couple questions of my own. You might have noticed them in my earlier post. I don't believe cache hiders should be above the law. Do you? I believe cache hiders (like cache seekers) should be responsible for their actions. Do you?

Edited December 26, 2011 by CanadianRockies

[+GeoBain]

Lets assume for a minute, instead of someone throwing bricks, it is just an old building, and bricks have fallen before. The store, which, by the way, is in a legal spot, and has permission from the city to do business, runs an ad. In the ad they make no mention of the building with falling bricks. The ad lures you to the store. By your way of convoluted thinking, you will be able to sue the store owner. After all he knew of the danger and didn't warn you.

 

IANAL, but I imagine you would likely wind up in a lawsuit; especially if you actually owned the building.

 

Not for the ad, but for not repairing the bricks or reporting it to the owner of the building.

 

Same as if I know I have a tree on my property with rot and do not take care of that tree. If it falls over on my neighbor's house, I am liable for the damage.

 

However, if I have a tree with no apparent damage and a storm blows it over on my neighbor's house, I likely would not be legally responsible for the damage.

 

At least that's what Judge Judy said.

 

Please reread my post, I did not say the store owner owned the building, nor has anything to do with it other than being on the same street it is on. I think it is obvious the owner of the building could be sued, but why the store owner. Because he didn't tell the building owner? Not his responsablity.

 

By your example, if I knew a tree on your property was rotten and I didn't tell you. If it fell on a neighbor's property, I could be sued???? I know this is a sue happy country, but I don't think it is that bad yet.

 

You may want to reread MY post since it seems you are a bit confused about what I said.

[+cx1]

 

I have a couple questions of my own. You might have noticed them in my earlier post. I don't believe cache hiders should be above the law. Do you? I believe cache hiders (like cache seekers) should be responsible for their actions. Do you?

 

I believe that cache owners (hiders) should be in compliance with all Federal, State and local laws. I believe that cache owners should also follow the wishes of owners of private property (granted as long as those wishes are also within the law).

Trying to hide a cache does not give me free reign to break any law. I should not trespass to place a cache. I should not enter an area outside of open hours of operation to place a cache. Those are the two I think tie in most closely to this discussion. Of course I should not speed or kill people etc while placing a cache either, but I assume you get my point without me listing every single law I would not break.

 

I feel cache owners are only responsible for their direct actions. If what I do does not directly cause injury or harm to someone then I should be held harmless if something beyond my direct action harms them.

For example, if while attempting to find one of my caches a person falls, gets stung, gets bitten, has a piece of space debris fall on them etc etc then since all of those things are both outside my control and not a result of my direct action (I did not push the person over, I did not throw a wasp's nest on them, I did not cover them with honey and tie them to a red ant hill etc etc) then I do not feel I have any responsibility should those or similar events occur.

 

If my cache takes the seeker to a forest with some old leaning trees I do not feel I am responsible to provide a warning that those trees could fall over at any time. If a seeker attempts to find my cache during a wind storm and a tree falls on them, I will feel sympathy for the injured seeker but I would not feel responsible for their injury.

 

To return to your void area now that we have more details.

Parts of the property have warnings about the voids provided by the government, yet the area where the cache is located does not. But the cache owner knows that this area shares the same danger.

Is this one of those 'everyone local knows' kind of things? Similar to how long time residents of an area of New York probably know about the 102nd Street Chemical Leachate Treatment Facility but someone from say Indiana probably would not?

Or is this more of an exclusive knowledge of the danger held by few beyond the cache owner?

Something I held as common local knowledge I would probably not include in a cache listing since the local caching community is the intended target of my caches. I believe I've only had one 'found' log from someone from out of state.

 

Now let me change this a little, well not really change but add to it a bit.

Lets say I place a cache in this dangerous area.

I do not warn of the danger.

You are on vacation, see the cache listing and come to this public area to find my cache.

Tragically you stumble into one of the areas over a void, it collapses and you are hurt.

You feel you would be justified to sue me for your damages because I knew about the dangerous voids and failed to warn you. At least that is how I am interpreting your position.

 

Now lets say instead of just stumbling on a void area, a unrelated 3rd party pushes you on to the void area with the same result in injury as before.

 

My actions did not change one bit. Are you going to hold the 3rd party harmless for your injures? Somehow I doubt that. Yet when you are the 3rd party (you cause yourself to stumble on a unknown void) you want to hold the person with direct control of your actions(you) harmless and assign the entire blame to me.

 

BTW: interesting side note-- I know there is a cache listed at the site of what could be considered a toxic waste dump. There is no mention of it on the cache listing. It is now a state park, but it was a place where tons of toxic waste was dumped. Interestingly enough the person who dumped all of that toxic waste was in fact sued. But he won the case. So it sets an interesting precedent don't you think?

Edited December 26, 2011 by cx1

[+CanadianRockies]

I believe that cache owners (hiders) should be in compliance with all Federal, State and local laws.

Thanks. This comment actually tweaked my brain a bit. I knew that Groundspeak guidelines forbid the placement of illegal caches:

 

1. All local laws apply. This refers to both the placement of the geocache and the journey required to reach it.

I also knew that most jurisdictions have statutes regarding gross negligence. Until now, I hadn't combined these two notions. So, I was wrong before. The example I gave earlier about the cache hidden near the unstable ground easily could involve gross negligence and therefore violate Groundspeak guidelines. Good to know.

 

Is this one of those 'everyone local knows' kind of things?... Or is this more of an exclusive knowledge of the danger held by few beyond the cache owner?

It's known to relatively few people beyond the cache owner. Mostly local spelunkers.

 

Now lets say instead of just stumbling on a void area, a unrelated 3rd party pushes you on to the void area with the same result in injury as before.

 

My actions did not change one bit. Are you going to hold the 3rd party harmless for your injures? Somehow I doubt that. Yet when you are the 3rd party (you cause yourself to stumble on a unknown void) you want to hold the person with direct control of your actions(you) harmless and assign the entire blame to me.

Um... If you're the plaintiff, then I don't think you can be a third party. If someone with knowledge of the hidden danger and its seriousness did push you onto the unstable ground that collapsed, then the court would have to determine if that person is partly responsible for your injuries/death and to what degree. (More than one person can be held responsible.)

 

BTW: interesting side note-- I know there is a cache listed at the site of what could be considered a toxic waste dump. There is no mention of it on the cache listing. It is now a state park, but it was a place where tons of toxic waste was dumped. Interestingly enough the person who dumped all of that toxic waste was in fact sued. But he won the case. So it sets an interesting precedent don't you think?

It would depend on the reasons why the defendant won the case.

Edited December 26, 2011 by CanadianRockies

[Keystone]

I believe that cache owners (hiders) should be in compliance with all Federal, State and local laws.

Thanks. This comment actually tweaked my brain a bit. I knew that Groundspeak guidelines forbid the placement of illegal caches:

 

1. All local laws apply. This refers to both the placement of the geocache and the journey required to reach it.

I also knew that most jurisdictions have statutes regarding gross negligence. Until now, I hadn't combined these two notions. So, I was wrong before. The example I gave earlier about the cache hidden near the unstable ground easily could involve gross negligence and therefore violate Groundspeak guidelines. Good to know.

You are mixing tort law and criminal law principles. The listing guidelines aren't contemplating torts but rather criminal statutes such as trespassing, criminal mischief, vandalism, etc.

[+CanadianRockies]

You are mixing tort law and criminal law principles. The listing guidelines aren't contemplating torts but rather criminal statutes such as trespassing, criminal mischief, vandalism, etc.

Thanks for the clarification. Perhaps that guideline could be amended in the next round of revisions.

Edited December 26, 2011 by CanadianRockies

[Keystone]

I think the guidelines are fine. The phrase "all local laws apply" gets at things that a law enforcement officer or park ranger could stop a geocacher for, issue a citation, make an arrest, etc. You're not going to get handcuffed and jailed for ordinary or gross negligence.

 

The guidelines are pretty lengthy and this particular point is fairly direct and straightforward. Do we need paragraphs to carve out divorce law, consumer protection law, tax law`and tort law? I don't think so.

[+CanadianRockies]

I think the guidelines are fine. The phrase "all local laws apply" gets at things that a law enforcement officer or park ranger could stop a geocacher for, issue a citation, make an arrest, etc. You're not going to get handcuffed and jailed for ordinary or gross negligence.

 

The guidelines are pretty lengthy and this particular point is fairly direct and straightforward. Do we need paragraphs to carve out divorce law, consumer protection law, tax law`and tort law? I don't think so.

Maybe not paragraphs, but I don't think adding a single word would hurt. Perhaps something like, "All local criminal laws apply."

[+GeoBain]

I think the guidelines are fine. The phrase "all local laws apply" gets at things that a law enforcement officer or park ranger could stop a geocacher for, issue a citation, make an arrest, etc. You're not going to get handcuffed and jailed for ordinary or gross negligence.

 

The guidelines are pretty lengthy and this particular point is fairly direct and straightforward. Do we need paragraphs to carve out divorce law, consumer protection law, tax law`and tort law? I don't think so.

Maybe not paragraphs, but I don't think adding a single word would hurt. Perhaps something like, "All local criminal laws apply."

 

Most of us already recognize it refers to criminal law.

[+keehotee]

I think the guidelines are fine. The phrase "all local laws apply" gets at things that a law enforcement officer or park ranger could stop a geocacher for, issue a citation, make an arrest, etc. You're not going to get handcuffed and jailed for ordinary or gross negligence.

 

The guidelines are pretty lengthy and this particular point is fairly direct and straightforward. Do we need paragraphs to carve out divorce law, consumer protection law, tax law`and tort law? I don't think so.

Maybe not paragraphs, but I don't think adding a single word would hurt. Perhaps something like, "All local criminal laws apply."

 

You have to bear in mind that the guidelines apply worldwide. In some countries - the UK for instance - trespass isn't a criminal offence. I'm fairly certain the intention is for cache hiders not to trespass when placing caches though?

[+DcCow]

I think the guidelines are fine. The phrase "all local laws apply" gets at things that a law enforcement officer or park ranger could stop a geocacher for, issue a citation, make an arrest, etc. You're not going to get handcuffed and jailed for ordinary or gross negligence.

 

The guidelines are pretty lengthy and this particular point is fairly direct and straightforward. Do we need paragraphs to carve out divorce law, consumer protection law, tax law`and tort law? I don't think so.

Maybe not paragraphs, but I don't think adding a single word would hurt. Perhaps something like, "All local criminal laws apply."

 

You have to bear in mind that the guidelines apply worldwide. In some countries - the UK for instance - trespass isn't a criminal offence. I'm fairly certain the intention is for cache hiders not to trespass when placing caches though?

 

True in most cases, but when combined with forcible entry or being on dangerous ground such as railway properties, it can be considered a criminal offence.