Court Cases

[GPS-Hermit]

Just wondering if there have been any lawsuits associated with our game. Hurt on Property, trespassing, Bad advice, Car towed, Did not get permission, Wrong co-ordinates, dangerous grounds. I have never heard of the 1st one. Got to be something out there. I have not seen it in GeoCaching makes the news.

[+MartyBartfast]

I once got a speeding ticket

[+JBnW]

Here's a case involving caches on railroad property, and NO, it's not about safety.

[+T.D.M.22]

There was a geocacher who died while attempting to get a T4 or 5 cache, however the family did not sue. Just recently there was a cacher injured getting to the cache and the Forest service or whoever it was that controlled the land wouldn't allow any access to that piece of land. It was a giant rock, almost need rock climbing gear to get to the top.

 

I believe Groundspeaks official stance is, "we didn't place the cache, we don't own the cache or property and no-one is forcing you to go to the cache. The risk is all yours." Which is true-they are only a listing service, and it is your decision to go or not to go. I think most cachers wouldn't sue, but unfortunatly there have been time when a cache was on or near private property and the owners want it removed. And time when the bomb squad gets called out, occasionally leaving the cache owner to take care of the bill-in the thousands of dollars-or so I've heard.

[GPS-Hermit]

Here's a case involving caches on railroad property, and NO, it's not about safety.

 

I couldn't get the links to work on this one

 

There was a fine but don't know how much and what the particular judgement was!

Edited September 19, 2012 by GPS-Hermit

[+JBnW]

Here's a case involving caches on railroad property, and NO, it's not about safety.

 

I couldn't get the links to work on this one

 

There was a fine but don't know how much and what the particular judgement was!

At the risk of citing a GS Forum thread from 2002 as some sort of "proof": Yes, the thread does mention a fine, and I believe also a suspension of caching activities for some period of time. In addition to the permission issue, I also believe there was something about spray paint graffiti on RR property as well. I may be wrong on the second part, BUT, would you want to be involved with any sort of Court Ordered fine???

[AZcachemeister]

I recall a recent thread where it was mentioned that a cacher tried a tree-climbing cache and fell out of the tree.

As I recall the injuries were substantial, but not life-threatening.

I don't recall if the property owner was the cache owner (or if the discussion even clarified this) but apparently the cacher was suing the property owner.

 

Personally, I don't think I could stand up in court and say I tried to climb the tree, but was too clumsy to do it and fell out and busted my arse.

[+CanadianRockies]

There was a thread about a Texas cache owner who was sued by a geocacher who was injured while searching for a cache. It was settled out of court.

[+CanadianRockies]

Then there was the criminal lawsuit brought against the California man who shot a teenage geocacher.

[+Don_J]

Then there was the criminal lawsuit brought against the California man who shot a teenage geocacher.

 

Not sure what a "criminal lawsuit" is. As far as a civil lawsuit in this case, there really is no point as the guy really doesn't have any assets and won't really be making much in prison. Sue the cache hider? The only way that that could fly is if you could convince a jury that he was negligent in hiding the cache. While the cache was on private property, it was not on the property of the guy that fired on the cachers. The property that it was on was undeveloped desert with no fences or markings of any kind. There is no way that the hider could have any expectation that an adjacent property owner would lose his mind and fire a weapon at people.

 

I look at cache listings kind of like a tour book. I know that there was a lawsuit in Hawaii a few years back where someone was injured or killed after following directions in a published tour book. I don't know what the outcome was, but it's my personal feeling that if you point me to a giant rock, a waterfall or a tree, it's my decision to climb them. I should not be allowed to sue you because I made the wrong decision.

[+Jumpin' Jack Cache]

Then there was the criminal lawsuit brought against the California man who shot a teenage geocacher.

 

Not sure what a "criminal lawsuit" is. As far as a civil lawsuit in this case, there really is no point as the guy really doesn't have any assets and won't really be making much in prison. Sue the cache hider? The only way that that could fly is if you could convince a jury that he was negligent in hiding the cache. While the cache was on private property, it was not on the property of the guy that fired on the cachers. The property that it was on was undeveloped desert with no fences or markings of any kind. There is no way that the hider could have any expectation that an adjacent property owner would lose his mind and fire a weapon at people.

 

I look at cache listings kind of like a tour book. I know that there was a lawsuit in Hawaii a few years back where someone was injured or killed after following directions in a published tour book. I don't know what the outcome was, but it's my personal feeling that if you point me to a giant rock, a waterfall or a tree, it's my decision to climb them. I should not be allowed to sue you because I made the wrong decision.

Not even if I was grossly negligent?

[+Don_J]

Then there was the criminal lawsuit brought against the California man who shot a teenage geocacher.

 

Not sure what a "criminal lawsuit" is. As far as a civil lawsuit in this case, there really is no point as the guy really doesn't have any assets and won't really be making much in prison. Sue the cache hider? The only way that that could fly is if you could convince a jury that he was negligent in hiding the cache. While the cache was on private property, it was not on the property of the guy that fired on the cachers. The property that it was on was undeveloped desert with no fences or markings of any kind. There is no way that the hider could have any expectation that an adjacent property owner would lose his mind and fire a weapon at people.

 

I look at cache listings kind of like a tour book. I know that there was a lawsuit in Hawaii a few years back where someone was injured or killed after following directions in a published tour book. I don't know what the outcome was, but it's my personal feeling that if you point me to a giant rock, a waterfall or a tree, it's my decision to climb them. I should not be allowed to sue you because I made the wrong decision.

Not even if I was grossly negligent?

 

IMO, you are not grossly negligent for telling where a giant rock is and telling me that you placed a cache on top of it.

 

We had a situation where a landslide took out about 30' of trail, with a cache just on the other side of the slide. The slope was about 45 degrees and the soil and scree rock was very loose. It was about 300' to the bottom of the canyon. The cache owner tried to stamp down a path straight across. Despite that, it was very dangerous and could have been deadly if you slid to the bottom. The cache owner kept insisting both through the cache description and through log entries that it was perfectly safe and that a beginner hiker would have no problem. I thought that that was irresponsible. Gross negligent? I don't know but it could have made a good test case if a mishap had occurred. If the CO had simply said nothing about the slide, then I think that it's up to the finder to access the danger. By insisting that it is safe, I think he opens himself up to liability.

[+CanadianRockies]

Then there was the criminal lawsuit brought against the California man who shot a teenage geocacher.

Not sure what a "criminal lawsuit" is.

"A criminal lawsuit is any process in a court of law that seeks legal remedy for illegal actions committed against another party."

[+Snoogans]

There was a thread about a Texas cache owner who was sued by a geocacher who was injured while searching for a cache. It was settled out of court.

I've been asking around about this case for 10 months and I've gotten nowhere. I have my doubts, but I'm waiting until I meet that OP....

 

To the OP of this thread. Always remember that the Groundspeak disclaimer is intended to protect Groundspeak and NOT the cache owner.

 

There has only been one death that I know of, the death of Williemax in Dresden, Germany, where the victim's family could have sued and easily defeated the GS disclaimer and gotten very wealthy suing everyone in sight, because the owner didn't have permission, the cache passed review, and the community has a don't ask don't tell mentality. It was a perfect storm that hopefully won't be repeated. Groundspeak is very very lucky it didn't happen in America. They used up one of their nine lives on that one.

 

Groundspeak is the by far the largest cache listing service. As we near the Mainstream Event Horizon legal issues will present themselves more and more often. Someone with a lottery mentality will get hurt and not take responsibility for their own actions. They will successfully sue GS for duty to care citing their near monopoly of the activity. I hope they are planning for this.

[+Manville Possum]

What about a disclaimer like this on the cache page?

 

DISCLAIMER: Cache owner does not in any manner direct or indirect endorse or otherwise promote rash or dangerous behavior. The juxtaposition of certain unforeseen events over the course of a "cache hunt" are not the responsibility of said cache owner. Furthermore, natural events and/or the presence of natural inhabitants cannot be predicted with any regularity. Cache hunters are responsible for discerning conditions and acting appropriately. Cache owner is not responsible for any injury of any type that could possibly occur as a result of the cache hunt. In short, cache at your own risk.

[+lamoracke]

What about a disclaimer like this on the cache page?

 

DISCLAIMER: Cache owner does not in any manner direct or indirect endorse or otherwise promote rash or dangerous behavior. The juxtaposition of certain unforeseen events over the course of a "cache hunt" are not the responsibility of said cache owner. Furthermore, natural events and/or the presence of natural inhabitants cannot be predicted with any regularity. Cache hunters are responsible for discerning conditions and acting appropriately. Cache owner is not responsible for any injury of any type that could possibly occur as a result of the cache hunt. In short, cache at your own risk.

 

Very nicely worded, would hate to see this clutter up a cache page though. Course, I imagine folks hate seeing their Viagra and other drug commercials have more disclaimers than actual potential benefits. I would add illegal to the rash and dangerous stuff just to kill 2 birds in one stone.

[+Snoogans]

What about a disclaimer like this on the cache page?

 

DISCLAIMER: Cache owner does not in any manner direct or indirect endorse or otherwise promote rash or dangerous behavior. The juxtaposition of certain unforeseen events over the course of a "cache hunt" are not the responsibility of said cache owner. Furthermore, natural events and/or the presence of natural inhabitants cannot be predicted with any regularity. Cache hunters are responsible for discerning conditions and acting appropriately. Cache owner is not responsible for any injury of any type that could possibly occur as a result of the cache hunt. In short, cache at your own risk.

That's all Groundspeak's disclaimer says. It still won't fly if the proper conditions exist. I.E. lottery mentality and lack of personal accountability.

 

Like Keystone says... Anyone can sue for ANY reason. They may not win, but they can still cost you a pile of money.

[Mr.Yuck]

There was a thread about a Texas cache owner who was sued by a geocacher who was injured while searching for a cache. It was settled out of court.

I've been asking around about this case for 10 months and I've gotten nowhere. I have my doubts, but I'm waiting until I meet that OP....

 

To the OP of this thread. Always remember that the Groundspeak disclaimer is intended to protect Groundspeak and NOT the cache owner.

 

There has only been one death that I know of, the death of Williemax in Dresden, Germany, where the victim's family could have sued and easily defeated the GS disclaimer and gotten very wealthy suing everyone in sight, because the owner didn't have permission, the cache passed review, and the community has a don't ask don't tell mentality. It was a perfect storm that hopefully won't be repeated. Groundspeak is very very lucky it didn't happen in America. They used up one of their nine lives on that one.

 

Groundspeak is the by far the largest cache listing service. As we near the Mainstream Event Horizon legal issues will present themselves more and more often. Someone with a lottery mentality will get hurt and not take responsibility for their own actions. They will successfully sue GS for duty to care citing their near monopoly of the activity. I hope they are planning for this.

 

I believe the Texas thing happened!! And boy, talk about taking Geo-drama to the extreme.

 

Excellent points about the Williemax death. Never looked at it that way; I agree with what you say.

[+Mike & Jess]

I once got a speeding ticket

I've received many of these. Heck, had one going into a town for an event, and one leaving. Both 10kmph over.

 

There was a thread about a Texas cache owner who was sued by a geocacher who was injured while searching for a cache. It was settled out of court.

 

Interesting they settled out of court. The CO didn't ask the cacher to go where they did, does not own the property they where injured on...

 

Luckly, it's a bit more difficult to sue everyone for anything here. Still doable, but not worth the effort for what you may get if you are lucky.

[+baloo&bd]

 

I've been asking around about this case for 10 months and I've gotten nowhere. I have my doubts, but I'm waiting until I meet that OP....

 

To the OP of this thread. Always remember that the Groundspeak disclaimer is intended to protect Groundspeak and NOT the cache owner.

 

There has only been one death that I know of, the death of Williemax in Dresden, Germany, where the victim's family could have sued and IMHO easily defeated the GS disclaimer and gotten very wealthy suing everyone in sight, because the owner didn't have permission, the cache passed review, and the community has a don't ask don't tell mentality. It was a perfect storm that hopefully won't be repeated. Groundspeak is very very lucky it didn't happen in America. They used up one of their nine lives on that one.

 

Groundspeak is the by far the largest cache listing service. As we near the Mainstream Event Horizon legal issues will present themselves more and more often. Someone with a lottery mentality will get hurt and not take responsibility for their own actions. They will successfully sue GS for duty to care citing their near monopoly of the activity. I hope they are planning for this.

 

Added IMHO for you.

 

As was pointed out many times in the other threads, while anyone can sue over anything ("I don't like pine tree caches"), prevailing is another story. In the US, GS would most likely not carry any liability disclaimer or not. The CO may, however again neglect, intentional or otherwise would be difficult at best to prove.

 

Having said that, there is always a chance. There was an idiot judge who convicted someone of stealing caches, a verdict that would not hold up in the majority of courts (although there was apparently more to the story) so stupidity may not be limited to those on this side of the bench.

[+Snoogans]

I believe the Texas thing happened!!

Faith does not constitute proof. I do not totally disbelieve, but since it happened in my pond, I'm amazed at the complete lack of ripples. No one knows anything about it. That boulder must have been frictionless.

 

If I was out money because of some stupid BS the pond would be rockin.

 

I'm waiting for my opportunity to ask that OP about it offline.

[+geodarts]

There was a cacher in my area who routinely put a disclaimer on the description of the caches he hid advising that neither Groundspeak or the CO "shall be held responsible for injuries or damages of any kind incurred while searching for the above cache. Hunt this cache at your own risk." I am not sure how much protection this kind of disclaimer accomplishes.

 

Although risk can be waived through contract, to my mind, a disclaimer in a cache page, that may or may not even be read, does not amount to an express contractual agreement that would bar a civil suit. If assumption of the risk is implied, then other considerations come into play.

 

In my state (California) some activities implicate "primary assumption of the risk" where there is no duty to protect the plaintiff from particular harm. This doctrine has been applied to skiing accidents, rock climbing classes, a fall during a Machu Picchu tour, baseball injuries, and other sporting accidents. The general premise is that these activities involve inherent risks that cannot be eliminated without destroying the nature of the sport itself. On the other hand, it has not been applied to hiking on maintained trails and situations where the plaintiffs increased the danger -- for example, by not posting proper signs or designing unsafe motocross jumps.

 

Part of the rationale behind primary assumption of the risk is not to limit participants from "vigorously engaging in activity that falls close to, but on the permissible side of, a prescribed rule." (Knight v. Jewett.)

 

If assumption of the risk does not rise to the primary level, secondary assumption of the risk assigns comparative fault in situations where there was a duty of care but the plaintiffs took certain risks upon themselves. A jury would have to decide how much fault each party held and apportion the damages accordingly.

 

Applying these doctrines is often not easy -- and even in cases involving express waiver, gross negligence is not waived.

 

So if you hide a cache that violates rules for our game -- for instance, by taking people more than three feet off a designated trail in a California State Park -- did you increase the risk in a way that goes beyond prescribed rules, exposing yourself to at least some liability? If you know of a particular danger and fail to warn, could there be liability? And if Groundspeak publishes a cache that violates established rules that its reviewers ignored, would its disclaimers hold? I could certainly make an argument in favor of a plaintiff in all of those situations. Although it would be intellectually interesting to see how these things played out, I hope that it never has to be decided.

Edited September 20, 2012 by geodarts

[+CanadianRockies]

I believe the Texas thing happened!!

Faith does not constitute proof. I do not totally disbelieve, but since it happened in my pond, I'm amazed at the complete lack of ripples. No one knows anything about it. That boulder must have been frictionless.

 

If I was out money because of some stupid BS the pond would be rockin.

If you were out money, a court order prevented you from discussing the case, and the settlement had stiff penalties for discussing the case, then would you still be rockin' the pond?

 

I don't any proof the Texas thing happened or didn't happen, but the kind of details provided certainly make me think it did.

[+Snoogans]

I believe the Texas thing happened!!

Faith does not constitute proof. I do not totally disbelieve, but since it happened in my pond, I'm amazed at the complete lack of ripples. No one knows anything about it. That boulder must have been frictionless.

 

If I was out money because of some stupid BS the pond would be rockin.

If you were out money, a court order prevented you from discussing the case, and the settlement had stiff penalties for discussing the case, then would you still be rockin' the pond?

 

I don't any proof the Texas thing happened or didn't happen, but the kind of details provided certainly make me think it did.

 

Hell yes! I can rock the pond without discussing details. Folks would certainly know if it happened to me.

 

I've already been threatened with a lawsuit over one of my caches. But the lowlife that threatened me has no credibility and is in fact a banned member under his original account. I have told hundreds of folks that story offline. It's well known and has spread. I met someone recently that heard my story from someone else in a different state. If you find out who I'm talking about, go to the forum he owns and listen to the crickets.

[+CanadianRockies]

I believe the Texas thing happened!!

Faith does not constitute proof. I do not totally disbelieve, but since it happened in my pond, I'm amazed at the complete lack of ripples. No one knows anything about it. That boulder must have been frictionless.

 

If I was out money because of some stupid BS the pond would be rockin.

If you were out money, a court order prevented you from discussing the case, and the settlement had stiff penalties for discussing the case, then would you still be rockin' the pond?

 

I don't any proof the Texas thing happened or didn't happen, but the kind of details provided certainly make me think it did.

Hell yes! I can rock the pond without discussing details. Folks would certainly know if it happened to me.

In the Texas case,the identity of the plaintiff and defendant were two details that the parties apparently were ordered not to discuss. Once you start talking about permitted details, it's easy to get carried away and start discussing prohibited details. If I was the cache owner, I'd probably be reluctant to discuss it.

 

I've already been threatened with a lawsuit over one of my caches. But the lowlife that threatened me has no credibility and is in fact a banned member under his original account. I have told hundreds of folks that story offline.

It doesn't appear that there was a court order or settlement agreement that prohibited you from talking about the threatened lawsuit. That's quite a different situation.

[Mr.Yuck]

I believe the Texas thing happened!!

Faith does not constitute proof. I do not totally disbelieve, but since it happened in my pond, I'm amazed at the complete lack of ripples. No one knows anything about it. That boulder must have been frictionless.

 

If I was out money because of some stupid BS the pond would be rockin.

If you were out money, a court order prevented you from discussing the case, and the settlement had stiff penalties for discussing the case, then would you still be rockin' the pond?

 

I don't any proof the Texas thing happened or didn't happen, but the kind of details provided certainly make me think it did.

Hell yes! I can rock the pond without discussing details. Folks would certainly know if it happened to me.

In the Texas case,the identity of the plaintiff and defendant were two details that the parties apparently were ordered not to discuss. Once you start talking about permitted details, it's easy to get carried away and start discussing prohibited details. If I was the cache owner, I'd probably be reluctant to discuss it.

 

I've already been threatened with a lawsuit over one of my caches. But the lowlife that threatened me has no credibility and is in fact a banned member under his original account. I have told hundreds of folks that story offline.

It doesn't appear that there was a court order or settlement agreement that prohibited you from talking about the threatened lawsuit. That's quite a different situation.

 

In that case, the Geocaching community would have heard me shouting from the rooftops as soon as I was served with the papers, should some crackpot have ever tried to sue me over one of my caches. Crackpot being the family friendly term for the purposes of this post.

 

They don't put a gag order on you as soon as a crackpot serves you with papers, do they? I don't know, I've never been sued, frivolous (in this case) or otherwise.

[Mr.Yuck]

 

I've been asking around about this case for 10 months and I've gotten nowhere. I have my doubts, but I'm waiting until I meet that OP....

 

To the OP of this thread. Always remember that the Groundspeak disclaimer is intended to protect Groundspeak and NOT the cache owner.

 

There has only been one death that I know of, the death of Williemax in Dresden, Germany, where the victim's family could have sued and IMHO easily defeated the GS disclaimer and gotten very wealthy suing everyone in sight, because the owner didn't have permission, the cache passed review, and the community has a don't ask don't tell mentality. It was a perfect storm that hopefully won't be repeated. Groundspeak is very very lucky it didn't happen in America. They used up one of their nine lives on that one.

 

Groundspeak is the by far the largest cache listing service. As we near the Mainstream Event Horizon legal issues will present themselves more and more often. Someone with a lottery mentality will get hurt and not take responsibility for their own actions. They will successfully sue GS for duty to care citing their near monopoly of the activity. I hope they are planning for this.

 

Added IMHO for you.

 

As was pointed out many times in the other threads, while anyone can sue over anything ("I don't like pine tree caches"), prevailing is another story. In the US, GS would most likely not carry any liability disclaimer or not. The CO may, however again neglect, intentional or otherwise would be difficult at best to prove.

 

Having said that, there is always a chance. There was an idiot judge who convicted someone of stealing caches, a verdict that would not hold up in the majority of courts (although there was apparently more to the story) so stupidity may not be limited to those on this side of the bench.

 

My neck of the woods. Unfortunately, my local forum that existed at the time the world's most notorious cache thief arrest is extinct, and has been erased from the interwebs forever. However, I found the discussion at another regional Geocaching forum in New York that was even closer to the thefts. You see on Page 5 that Paul Repak had all charges against him dropped, if he didn't steal any more Geocaches for 6 months.

 

http://geocachingcny.com/general-geocaching-discussion/geo-thief-in-romeoneida-county/60/

[+SwineFlew]

I believe the Texas thing happened!!

Faith does not constitute proof. I do not totally disbelieve, but since it happened in my pond, I'm amazed at the complete lack of ripples. No one knows anything about it. That boulder must have been frictionless.

 

If I was out money because of some stupid BS the pond would be rockin.

If you were out money, a court order prevented you from discussing the case, and the settlement had stiff penalties for discussing the case, then would you still be rockin' the pond?

 

I don't any proof the Texas thing happened or didn't happen, but the kind of details provided certainly make me think it did.

 

Hell yes! I can rock the pond without discussing details. Folks would certainly know if it happened to me.

 

I've already been threatened with a lawsuit over one of my caches. But the lowlife that threatened me has no credibility and is in fact a banned member under his original account. I have told hundreds of folks that story offline. It's well known and has spread. I met someone recently that heard my story from someone else in a different state. If you find out who I'm talking about, go to the forum he owns and listen to the crickets.

Knowing you, you would!

 

I know two cachers that been in jail here on fed hold. Oh yes, the pond was rocking for sure!!

[+Snoogans]

I know two cachers that been in jail here on fed hold. Oh yes, the pond was rocking for sure!!

How long have they been held? And for what?

 

Feds as in FBI or what?

[+baloo&bd]

My neck of the woods. Unfortunately, my local forum that existed at the time the world's most notorious cache thief arrest is extinct, and has been erased from the interwebs forever. However, I found the discussion at another regional Geocaching forum in New York that was even closer to the thefts. You see on Page 5 that Paul Repak had all charges against him dropped, if he didn't steal any more Geocaches for 6 months.

 

http://geocachingcny.com/general-geocaching-discussion/geo-thief-in-romeoneida-county/60/

 

I read the thread and didn't see anywhere(last message on page) any mention about "geocaches" as part of the agreement. It is unfortunate that there was even a ruling of this type.

[+SwineFlew]

I know two cachers that been in jail here on fed hold. Oh yes, the pond was rocking for sure!!

How long have they been held? And for what?

 

Feds as in FBI or what?

I never found out. Nothing to do with caching for sure. I found a few federal count hearings online but it didnt give the nature of why.

 

I do wonder if it means the FBI wants them but not sure. All I know they were on federal hold of what the mugshots said.I they were on hold for a few days is my best guess. ALot of us cachers found out fast.

 

Just keep your eyes open, you might find them on this site.

Edited September 20, 2012 by SwineFlew

[Mr.Yuck]

My neck of the woods. Unfortunately, my local forum that existed at the time the world's most notorious cache thief arrest is extinct, and has been erased from the interwebs forever. However, I found the discussion at another regional Geocaching forum in New York that was even closer to the thefts. You see on Page 5 that Paul Repak had all charges against him dropped, if he didn't steal any more Geocaches for 6 months.

 

http://geocachingcny.com/general-geocaching-discussion/geo-thief-in-romeoneida-county/60/

 

I read the thread and didn't see anywhere(last message on page) any mention about "geocaches" as part of the agreement. It is unfortunate that there was even a ruling of this type.

 

True (and I am talking about the last post on page 5), but that's just a Geocacher who apparently went to the court proceedings paraphrasing what happened. I'm quite sure he was told charges dismissed if you don't remove (steal) any more Geocaches for 6 months.

 

Hey, don't get me wrong, I couldn't believe the guy was arrested and charged with any sort of crime for stealing Geocaches in the first place myself.