Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7
RedPiggy

Girl from Czech Republic died today while geocaching...

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

So four people were playing geocaching today when Prague got struck by a massive rain storm. When the storm struck, they were in the brook tunnel. Two of them were able to make it to the end of the tunnel. However, two of them were not. One girl was found lately drowned in the Vltava river, one is still missing. Hopefully the second person will be alive.

 

Source (Czech language only):

https://www.seznamzpravy.cz/clanek/podivejte-se-jak-prahu-zasahl-prudky-lijak-a-boure-48895

Edited by RedPiggy
Minor grammar changes

Share this post


Link to post

That is very unfortunate. I hope the missing person ends up being found alive.

 

A sad reminder of the potential hazards that exist out in the world, no matter what activity someone is participating in, and that Mother Nature can be a tremendous force.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

I thought that placing a geocache in a sewer was banned. This woman was geocaching in the storm drainage system. Not just some tunnel.

I was alerted to this as a news article on my smartphone. Here in all states in the USA trespass into the storm sewers is unlawful.

A few spelunkers here in Minnesota did that and went to the pokey.

I know that this was not in the USA but are not the rules for this game the same world wide.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Mn-treker said:

I know that this was not in the USA but are not the rules for this game the same world wide.

No, there are plenty of regional differences.  Even within the USA, there can be different rules in different parts of the country.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, Mn-treker said:

I thought that placing a geocache in a sewer was banned. This woman was geocaching in the storm drainage system. Not just some tunnel.

I was alerted to this as a news article on my smartphone. Here in all states in the USA trespass into the storm sewers is unlawful.

A few spelunkers here in Minnesota did that and went to the pokey.

I know that this was not in the USA but are not the rules for this game the same world wide.

 

There are a LOT of caches in storm drains in my area.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

There are a LOT of caches in storm drains in my area.

... which doesn't make them "legal" by default :rolleyes:. But yes, there are a few such caches in my area (southern Bavaria) as well, and they can be quite fun to do. But the cache descriptions usually include explicit warnings not to attempt the cache during or immediately after heavy rain. Unfortunately, all people, not only geocachers, sometimes make wrong decisions. Mostly without serious consequences, but sometimes ... very sad things happen :(.

 

I did something very stupid during caching many years ago. Could have ended tragically, but I was lucky ... and it definitely was a wake-up call to engage the brain before attempting certain caches.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, baer2006 said:

... which doesn't make them "legal" by default :rolleyes:. But yes, there are a few such caches in my area (southern Bavaria) as well, and they can be quite fun to do. But the cache descriptions usually include explicit warnings not to attempt the cache during or immediately after heavy rain. Unfortunately, all people, not only geocachers, sometimes make wrong decisions. Mostly without serious consequences, but sometimes ... very sad things happen :(.

 

I did something very stupid during caching many years ago. Could have ended tragically, but I was lucky ... and it definitely was a wake-up call to engage the brain before attempting certain caches.

 

Does it stop the family of the deceased from suing for reckless endangerment? If the location is off limits and the cache placed without permission, I wonder how much legal trouble the cache owners could be in? Would the clause on the GC site do much to protect cache owners if they are breaking the law?

Share this post


Link to post

Not that anyone couldn't sue anyone for no reason, I don't see how the cache owner would be held liable. It would be no different than if a cache was placed on a light post and right when a cacher is making the find the pole falls, or a car hits the pole or lightening strikes the pole.

 

I also have run into some cache pages where the cache owner is now including their own disclaimer stating that you are not required to attempt this cache and you do so at your own peril.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer ;) .

 

3 minutes ago, Team DEMP said:

Not that anyone couldn't sue anyone for no reason, I don't see how the cache owner would be held liable. It would be no different than if a cache was placed on a light post and right when a cacher is making the find the pole falls, or a car hits the pole or lightening strikes the pole.

The difference is that it's perfectly legal for you to stand around the light post, but the storm drain may be (and probably is) off limits to the general public.

 

6 minutes ago, Team DEMP said:

I also have run into some cache pages where the cache owner is now including their own disclaimer stating that you are not required to attempt this cache and you do so at your own peril.

Such disclaimers are sometimes considered null and void, or not applicable to the case at had, in court. Seems to depend heavily on context and circumstances, though ... as I said, I'm not a lawyer.

 

Bottom line: I'm don't know the answers to the legal questions, but I'm interested in them. Also, I'm sure the CO of that cache doesn't sleep well now.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, baer2006 said:

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer ;) .

 

The difference is that it's perfectly legal for you to stand around the light post, but the storm drain may be (and probably is) off limits to the general public.

 

Such disclaimers are sometimes considered null and void, or not applicable to the case at had, in court. Seems to depend heavily on context and circumstances, though ... as I said, I'm not a lawyer.

 

Bottom line: I'm don't know the answers to the legal questions, but I'm interested in them. Also, I'm sure the CO of that cache doesn't sleep well now.

 

We have similar around here - caches places in obviously perilous locations with the words I'm not responsible for anything that happens written on the cache page.

 

I tend to avoid placing caches in locations where, should anything untoward happen, I'd feel responsible. I wouldn't want that on my conscience.

 

I'd also have to say that placing a cache in a storm drain is a pretty stupid idea.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, baer2006 said:

 

1 hour ago, Team DEMP said:

Not that anyone couldn't sue anyone for no reason, I don't see how the cache owner would be held liable. It would be no different than if a cache was placed on a light post and right when a cacher is making the find the pole falls, or a car hits the pole or lightening strikes the pole.

The difference is that it's perfectly legal for you to stand around the light post, but the storm drain may be (and probably is) off limits to the general public.

 

Use me as the cache owner, which I'm not, and you as the cacher, which you aren't. If I place a cache, legal or illegal, there's no obligation for you to seek the cache. You do so at your own risk. If I hung it within a crevice 150ft feet up a cliff face, and you fall while attempting it, that's not my fault any more than if you fell climbing the same cliff face without a cache there. 
 

What if, using the light pole cache example again, you are going after the cache and as you reach for the cache, trip and smash your face on the light pole, you succumb to your injuries and don't survive. Is it the cache owners fault? 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Culvert/storm sewer caches are the worst.  I'll never understand the attraction to these places.  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Team DEMP said:

What if, using the light pole cache example again, you are going after the cache and as you reach for the cache, trip and smash your face on the light pole, you succumb to your injuries and don't survive. Is it the cache owners fault? 

 

I am having trouble imagining a sadder death...

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Team DEMP said:

If I hung it within a crevice 150ft feet up a cliff face, and you fall while attempting it, that's not my fault any more than if you fell climbing the same cliff face without a cache there. 

 

Except for the fact that you incentivized the climb.

 

In the case of the storm drain I'd wager that those cachers went in there with an attitude of The cache owner wouldn't have placed it here if it was dangerous.

Edited by Team Microdot
typo
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, J Grouchy said:
2 minutes ago, Team DEMP said:

What if, using the light pole cache example again, you are going after the cache and as you reach for the cache, trip and smash your face on the light pole, you succumb to your injuries and don't survive. Is it the cache owners fault? 

 

I am having trouble imagining a sadder death...

 

I guess if the cache was missing it would have been a tad worse. 

I'm not making light of the situation or diminishing the horrible outcome. I just don't see how the cache owner is at fault. But, juries have awarded more absurd verdicts that make you wonder.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Team Microdot said:

 

Except for the fact that you incentivized the climb.

 

In the case of the storm drain I'd wager that those cachers went in there with an attitude of The cache owner wouldn't have placed it here if it was dangerous.

I didn't incentivize the climb. I put a cache there - YOU made the decision to try and reach the cache. If you were blind and I put a cache near an intersection, you walked into the intersection and got hit by a car, is that my fault? You made the decision to attempt to find a cache and you took the action - it wasn't forced upon you.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Team DEMP said:
5 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Except for the fact that you incentivized the climb.

 

In the case of the storm drain I'd wager that those cachers went in there with an attitude of The cache owner wouldn't have placed it here if it was dangerous.

I didn't incentivize the climb. I put a cache there - YOU made the decision to try and reach the cache. If you were blind and I put a cache near an intersection, you walked into the intersection and got hit by a car, is that my fault? You made the decision to attempt to find a cache and you took the action - it wasn't forced upon you.

 

You definitely did.

 

Had you not placed the cache there, the idea of going there would never have entered my head.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Team Microdot said:
4 minutes ago, Team DEMP said:
8 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Except for the fact that you incentivized the climb.

 

In the case of the storm drain I'd wager that those cachers went in there with an attitude of The cache owner wouldn't have placed it here if it was dangerous.

I didn't incentivize the climb. I put a cache there - YOU made the decision to try and reach the cache. If you were blind and I put a cache near an intersection, you walked into the intersection and got hit by a car, is that my fault? You made the decision to attempt to find a cache and you took the action - it wasn't forced upon you.

 

You definitely did.

 

Had you not placed the cache there, the idea of going there would never have entered my head.

 

You are incorrect. You can say that, but the decision was 100% yours. If I placed a pencil at the cache site and you tripped and it went through your eye, is that my fault? What about a stick that was by the cache? You need to assume responsibility for your actions.  So next time when something "enters your head", think about the consequences before you act. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

Had you not placed the cache there, the idea of going there would never have entered my head.

 

 

Had Groundspeak not run a web site, we'd have no primary listing service. 
Had Al Gore not invented the Internet, we'd have no place for Groundspeak to run their website. 

Had the government not launched satellites into space, we'd have no GPS capabilities. 

 

Bleh!

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Team DEMP said:

 

You are incorrect. You can say that, but the decision was 100% yours. If I placed a pencil at the cache site and you tripped and it went through your eye, is that my fault? What about a stick that was by the cache? You need to assume responsibility for your actions.  So next time when something "enters your head", think about the consequences before you act. 

 

I'm not incorrect at all.

 

Your actions contributed directly to the incident.

 

You can choose to feel blameless but it isn't true.

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Team DEMP said:

 

Had Groundspeak not run a web site, we'd have no primary listing service. 
Had Al Gore not invented the Internet, we'd have no place for Groundspeak to run their website. 

Had the government not launched satellites into space, we'd have no GPS capabilities. 

 

Bleh!

 

Your actions have consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

I'm not incorrect at all.

 

Your actions contributed directly to the incident.

 

You can choose to feel blameless but it isn't true.

 

 

It would be similar to a farmer growing a cucumber for the sole purpose of someone eating it. You go to the supermarket, buy the cucumber, bring it home, and choke on it. The farmer is at fault? 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Team DEMP said:

It would be similar to a farmer growing a cucumber for the sole purpose of someone eating it. You go to the supermarket, buy the cucumber, bring it home, and choke on it. The farmer is at fault? 

 

I fail to see any real similarity between a farmer growing a cucumber and sending people into a storm drain in terms of associated risk levels.

 

I think cucumbers are generally fairly safe - although I believe some cats are afraid of them.

  • Upvote 3
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Team Microdot said:
4 minutes ago, Team DEMP said:

It would be similar to a farmer growing a cucumber for the sole purpose of someone eating it. You go to the supermarket, buy the cucumber, bring it home, and choke on it. The farmer is at fault? 

 

I fail to see any real similarity between a farmer growing a cucumber and sending people into a storm drain in terms of associated risk levels.

 

 

It's similar because you are concluding the source caused the incident where I challenge that.  No one sent someone into a storm drain any more than they made someone eat the cucumber.

 

If you are attempting to go for a cache that had 100 previous finds, and you fall off the cliff while attempting to get the cache, is it the cache owners fault? Nope. The cache owner did not require you to attempt the cache, walk to the edge and fall over. Your action was responsible for your situation. 

 

If you drive to work and get into an accident, is it your works fault? I mean they require you to get to the office and you drove so it must be there fault, right? :-/ 
 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Team DEMP said:

 

It's similar because you are concluding the source caused the incident where I challenge that.  No one sent someone into a storm drain any more than they made someone eat the cucumber.

 

 

I've made no claim that the source caused the incident. My claim is that they contributed to it by placing the cache in a hazardous location in the first place which in turn led to visitors who would otherwise have no reason to be there and, in all likelihood, would never have been there.

 

The CO placed an incentive to visit that location that previously had not existed. The CO is partly responsible for the outcome.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Thousands of people might go sightseeing to a beautiful canyon every year, photographing the majestic landscape and enjoying the amazing colors and rock formations.  Yeah, lots of people probably find little trails that wind up steep slopes at the bottom of the cliffs, finding hidey-holes to explore or - in the case of less-than-impressed youngsters - get up to no good.  A small few might even try to find ways to scale the cliffs themselves, relying on their skills and experience in rock climbing to get them safely to the top.  Each group fills their role...the safe travelers and sightseers, the bold explorers and adventurous teens, and the thrill-seekers and extreme sports junkies who do this stuff for a living.  What troubles me is when someone in the last group decides they've found a good spot for a cache halfway up the cliff face and folks from the other two groups who enjoy caching might suddenly find a reason to go outside their comfort zone because suddenly there is now a goal for them to reach.  Without proper training or preparation, there may be people deciding that hey, maybe they CAN walk a few yards further up the slope, maybe stand on top of those boulders at the bottom to reach the cache.  

 

What I'm trying to say is yes, there IS an incentive now.  Also yes, it is THEIR decision, but they likely never would have tried if not for the prize just out of normal reach.  

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

I've made no claim that the source caused the incident. My claim is that they contributed to it by placing the cache in a hazardous location in the first place which in turn led to visitors who would otherwise have no reason to be there and, in all likelihood, would never have been there.

 

The CO placed an incentive to visit that location that previously had not existed. The CO is partly responsible for the outcome.

 

So if I go hiking and fall off the cliff, it's not my fault but the trail conference that created the trail and gave me an incentive to go to the location which caused me to fall off the cliff. Or maybe it's the State who created the State Park there which allowed the trail conference to create a trail that gave me an incentive to go to the location which caused me to fall off the cliff I would have never been near. How about I'm just a klutz, or I was stupid and did something I shouldn't have. The trail or trail conference didn't cause me to fall off the cliff, I did. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Team DEMP said:

So if I go hiking and fall off the cliff, it's not my fault but the trail conference that created the trail and gave me an incentive to go to the location which caused me to fall off the cliff. Or maybe it's the State who created the State Park there which allowed the trail conference to create a trail that gave me an incentive to go to the location which caused me to fall off the cliff I would have never been near. How about I'm just a klutz, or I was stupid and did something I shouldn't have. The trail or trail conference didn't cause me to fall off the cliff, I did. 

 

I must be communicating particularly pooly this afternoon for you to come to the conclusion that you're not at fault for your own actions.

 

Either that or you're just having a hard time accepting the truth.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Team DEMP said:

If you drive to work and get into an accident, is it your works fault? I mean they require you to get to the office and you drove so it must be there fault, right? :-/ 

 

 

Not the employer's fault but at least here, it's the employer's insurance that will cover medical cost just as if the accident happened at your workplace, but hey, that's here and here (although things are starting to change) people don't go suing as easily as "across the pond".

Although common sense isn't what it used to be there are things where using it can be the difference between life and death. We wouldn't need warnings like "coffee can be hot" or "remove child before washing clothes" if more people would use the stuff inside their skulls a bit more <_<

I've gone after caches where I didn't go through getting to the container because I felt it wasn't safe, others logged it without a problem but I will do my best not to die for that +1 in my stats.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Team Microdot said:

 

 

Either that or you're just having a hard time accepting the truth.

 

I accept responsibility for my actions. When finding a cache, neither the cache owner, nor Groundspeak, nor the government providing me the GPS signal is responsible for what happens to me. I assume full responsibility for my actions. 

I don't have a boat/canoe but I guess if I tried to swim for a cache on an island and drowned, the cache owner would be responsible? They did place the cache knowing you need a boat and I didn't have one so I had to swim. 

Nonsense - sue away all you folks that don't want to take full responsibility for your own actions. 

Share this post


Link to post

There's no obligation to go caching. There's no obligation to go after any/every cache. You as a responsible adult (maybe the problem with some here) make that decision and you need to assume the responsibility and consequences of your decision.  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Team DEMP said:

 

I accept responsibility for my actions. When finding a cache, neither the cache owner, nor Groundspeak, nor the government providing me the GPS signal is responsible for what happens to me. I assume full responsibility for my actions. 

I don't have a boat/canoe but I guess if I tried to swim for a cache on an island and drowned, the cache owner would be responsible? They did place the cache knowing you need a boat and I didn't have one so I had to swim. 

Nonsense - sue away all you folks that don't want to take full responsibility for your own actions. 

 

I think the concept I've fundamentally failed to communicate to you is the difference between total responsibility and contributary responsibility as you seem to be determined that responsibility is an 'all-or-nothing' quantity whereas there are lots of circumstances like the OP where a number of actions by various individual entities contributes to a single outcome.

 

In this particular case the entities involved are the CO who placed the cache in a hazardous location and the cachers who chose to enter the storm drain in a bid to find it.

 

Edited by Team Microdot
typo
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

In this particular case the entities involved are the CO who placed the cache in a hazardous location and the cachers who chose to enter the storm drain in a bid to find it.

 

I don't know the GC code for this. What if the cache was placed 4 years ago and had 350 finds without incident.  Is it any different from a cache being placed in the desert or other location and everything is fine for years except for the once in 100 year storm that comes in and floods the location where the cache is?  These cache owners are all liable in your scenario... and GC for allowing them to be placed and putting them on their website so that cachers are somehow strong armed into going after them and possibly getting killed. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkN6wbACvis

 

Or what about an avalanche on a cache in the winter.  I can't sue my neighbor if a tree on his property falls on my house due to mother nature and we want to sue a cache owner because he placed a cache that no one had any obligation to go after? Nonsense.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Not sure if Groundspeak would also be liable for allowing listings on their site that encourage others to break laws (trespassing). There are plenty of storm drain caches listed on geocaching.com,  I expect that many would involve trespassing.  They don't allow other trespassing caches such as railroad tracks or private property on their site.  

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Team DEMP said:

 

I don't know the GC code for this. What if the cache was placed 4 years ago and had 350 finds without incident.  Is it any different from a cache being placed in the desert or other location and everything is fine for years except for the once in 100 year storm that comes in and floods the location where the cache is?  These cache owners are all liable in your scenario... and GC for allowing them to be placed and putting them on their website so that cachers are somehow strong armed into going after them and possibly getting killed. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkN6wbACvis

 

Or what about an avalanche on a cache in the winter.  I can't sue my neighbor if a tree on his property falls on my house due to mother nature and we want to sue a cache owner because he placed a cache that no one had any obligation to go after? Nonsense.

 

 

What is nonsense is the attitude that somehow responsibility and force go hand-in-hand and the repeated claims that the CO placing a cache in a hazardous location has zero responsibility for what happens as a result of that - oh, and the idea that this discussion has anything to do with working out who to sue.

 

The truth remains that the CO contributed to the outcome. That's a fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, L0ne.R said:

Not sure if Groundspeak would also be liable for allowing listings on their site that encourage others to break laws (trespassing). There are plenty of storm drain caches listed on geocaching.com,  I expect that many would involve trespassing.  They don't allow other trespassing caches such as railroad tracks or private property on their site.  

 

A cache in my local area, located in an overflow from a drinking water reservoir has recently had to be archived subsequent to the landowner learning of its presence.

 

Pretty sure the archive was handled by a volunteer reviewer but I suspect that it will have been archived on the basis of lack of permission rather than anything to do specifically with safety - even though it's highly likely that safety was the landowners primary motivation.

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

What is nonsense is the attitude that somehow responsibility and force go hand-in-hand and the repeated claims that the CO placing a cache in a hazardous location has zero responsibility for what happens as a result of that - oh, and the idea that this discussion has anything to do with working out who to sue.

 

You continue to assume it was a known hazardous location. I've posted multiple replies here where maybe it wasn't hazardous for dozens/hundreds of other finds and possibly many years. Same for other areas that haven't in years/decades been an issue but at any time could be a problem. It doesn't make it the cache owners responsibility you went after a cache during a hazardous event any more than going out to a single tree in the middle of a lightening storm is the cache owners fault. You aren't responding to those comments - give them a noodle. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

A cache in my local area, located in an overflow from a drinking water reservoir has recently had to be archived subsequent to the landowner learning of its presence.

 

Pretty sure the archive was handled by a volunteer reviewer but I suspect that it will have been archived on the basis of lack of permission rather than anything to do specifically with safety - even though it's highly likely that safety was the landowners primary motivation.

 

 

 

 

Similar: https://coord.info/GC49E2E

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Team DEMP said:

You continue to assume it was a known hazardous location. I've posted multiple replies here where maybe it wasn't hazardous for dozens/hundreds of other finds and possibly many years. Same for other areas that haven't in years/decades been an issue but at any time could be a problem. It doesn't make it the cache owners responsibility you went after a cache during a hazardous event any more than going out to a single tree in the middle of a lightening storm is the cache owners fault. You aren't responding to those comments - give them a noodle. 

 

It's a storm drain. It's an unpredicatably hazardous location - as evidenced by the subject of this thread.

 

The fact that previous finders got away with it doesn't make it any less hazardous.

 

I dislike having to repeat myself but the fact remains that nowhere in this thread has anyone claimed the CO is solely responsible for this awful tragedy - only that they made a very real contribution to the outcome. We might even argue that they placed a cause which ultimately resulted in the observed effect of someone's untimely death.

 

There's your response.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Rather than working out who is responsible, has there been any update on the second missing person from that group?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, K13 said:

Rather than working out who is responsible, has there been any update on the second missing person from that group?

Not yet. theyre still searching for him. I think everybody knows what it means by now...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Mn-treker said:

 Here in all states in the USA trespass into the storm sewers is unlawful.

 

Got a link?    Thanks.  :)         

We've done around a dozen now, all with permission. 

 

We were even gonna place one with another, and had permission for it, but a small piece of rebar kept trapping small branches.  Small branches trapping other "stuff", and I felt that blocking an almost mile-long drain could pose a problem (maybe something similar to the OP).

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

It's a storm drain. It's an unpredicatably hazardous location - as evidenced by the subject of this thread.

 

Have you found caches associated with a sewer? Something hanging from a grate or magnetic  hidden underneath? Those are hazardous if it's flooding and the sewer is overflowing. One might use their brain and not go for the cache in that situation. Doesn't mean the cache is in a hazardous location for me, but I'm struggling to find a non-hazardous location in your views as, regardless of the situation, something could eventually happen.  Is a 1 in 10 year storm/situation the definition of a hazardous location? 1 in 100 year storm/weather event? Once a year?

 

3 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I dislike having to repeat myself but the fact remains that nowhere in this thread has anyone claimed the CO is solely responsible for this awful tragedy - only that they made a very real contribution to the outcome. We might even argue that they placed a cause which ultimately resulted in the observed effect of someone's untimely death.

 

I've seen you repeat yourself a lot on the forums so I thought that was something you enjoyed.  And never did I say you claimed the CO is solely responsible but I am claiming the CO is not responsible. Whether it's 1/100th of a percent or 100%, I claim the CO is not responsible for someone deciding to go after a cache they placed. They are responsible for the placement of their cache - not the actions that others do in attempting to find the cache. 

  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Just dropping in to say I'm thoroughly enjoying the informed legal analysis of the scope of proximate cause that's happening in this thread right now.

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, ZeppelinDT said:

Just dropping in to say I'm thoroughly enjoying the informed legal analysis of the scope of proximate cause that's happening in this thread right now.

 

That's nice.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, Team DEMP said:

 And never did I say you claimed the CO is solely responsible but I am claiming the CO is not responsible. Whether it's 1/100th of a percent or 100%, I claim the CO is not responsible for someone deciding to go after a cache they placed. They are responsible for the placement of their cache - not the actions that others do in attempting to find the cache. 

 

Your refusal to accept the fact that the CO contributed to the chain of events which ultimately led to one and possibly two deaths doesn't make it any less true.

 

I'd also question the suggestion that the cachers who are the subject of this thread deserve to be called stupid on the basis that they failed to predict freak weather.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Your refusal to accept the fact that the CO contributed to the chain of events which ultimately led to one and possibly two deaths doesn't make it any less true.

 

And if they Uber'ed to the cache location, and the Uber driver happened to make a wrong turn or get stuck at the light continued to the chain of events as did the exact time and location their parents conceived them. Or the amount of time it took them to DNF the prior cache which delayed them and had them where they were at the time of the event. Are we blaming the previous cacher for not properly maintaining their cache as part of the chain of events? I'm not sure how you aren't looking for any reason to blame others. The decision to go after the cache lies solely on the cacher. The decision to enter a location to get the cache lies solely on the cacher. The decision to go out caching that day lies solely on the cacher. 

 

42 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I'd also question the suggestion that the cachers who are the subject of this thread deserve to be called stupid on the basis that they failed to predict freak weather.


Not sure who is calling the poor folks "stupid", but it is their responsibility to be prepared, just as it's my responsibility and everyone's responsibility. If they were going on a 20km hike and weren't prepared for a weather situation, is that the cache owners fault? But at least you are accepting that it's their failure to properly assess the situation which lead to these individual's unfortunate situation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

I have been in storm drains - both for caching and exploration - although these days I am less likely to go there since there are other locations I like better.

 

Cachers are not the only recent deaths in a storm drain.  Things can happen.   Situations in a drain can quickly magnify, although i have been in other areas where flash floods could pose a risk - and where I found some of my favorite caches.  For that matter, I was caching last week in an area that is generally safe, but where people have died kayaking because the weather changed on them.  I hiked in when a kayaking guide believed that conditions on the water could change before we got back.

 

The urbanex motto is if it rains don't go into the drain and to pay careful attention to the weather.   

 

Legality is is a complicated question.  One urbanex site says, draining is inherently dangerous and is illegal in most places - although there may be good reasons for going there.  Even mainstream publications have recognized that storm drains are "regularly explored" by photographers even in areas where all of them are "off limits."

 

Are there ordinances, is the drain posted, who owns the drain?  Although civil trespass usually involves being someplace without permission,  laws vary greatly by state and country (particularly for criminal trespass). 

 

Assuming that a CO is not responsible for the risks people take in finding a cache,  responsibility for placement is not a simple matter.  Even if you can enter a drain, permission might be needed to leave something there - if interpreted broadly there may be ordinances that prohibit anything left in drains.   And since private property owners in my state have been held liable for storm drain maintenance that passes under their property, perhaps there are issues there as well.  

 

At least one country banned an urbanex web site for promoting activities that pose a risk to public safety or the infrastructure.  While that is an extreme reaction (although perhaps no different than bans on guard rail hides), there are considerations that might require more than a disclaimer on the cache page.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by geodarts
  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7

×