Girl from Czech Republic died today while geocaching...

[+Team Microdot]

7 minutes ago, Team DEMP said:

But at least you are accepting that it's their failure to properly assess the situation which lead to these individual's unfortunate situation. 

 

As far as I know, freak weather is described as such because of its unusual and unpredictable nature - with unpredictable being the operative word.

 

On this basis I see no reason to condemn them for some imagined lack of ability.

[+Team DEMP]

11 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

26 minutes ago, Team DEMP said:

But at least you are accepting that it's their failure to properly assess the situation which lead to these individual's unfortunate situation. 

 

As far as I know, freak weather is described as such because of its unusual and unpredictable nature - with unpredictable being the operative word.

 

On this basis I see no reason to condemn them for some imagined lack of ability.

 

You appear to be condemning the cache owner for freak weather?  

 

People do stupid things all the time and get hurt/killed when not geocaching. But if they are geocaching and something happens, we need rules/regulations to protect people from not using common sense and someone needs to be blamed. What if there was no geocaching there and they just happened to take a route between 2 geocaches through the same location?

I'm tired of someone else having to take responsibility for someone else's poor decision.  Look at the number of warning labels on a golf cart. If every golfer just sat in the cart and drove to their ball there wouldn't be a single sticker needed. 

[+Team Microdot]

2 minutes ago, Team DEMP said:

 

You appear to be condemning the cache owner for freak weather?  

 

 

Where exactly?

[+geodarts]

 

58 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

As far as I know, freak weather is described as such because of its unusual and unpredictable nature - with unpredictable being the operative word.

 

On this basis I see no reason to condemn them for some imagined lack of ability.

 

The storm was described as being massive and torrential,   I assume that there were predictions of rain.  And a storm drain or sewer is not the place to be found if rain is at all predicted. 

 

But it see no reason to condemn them for lack of ability - any more than I would condemn Rebecca Bunting for being in a storm drain in Philadelphia - or for that matter the kayakers I referred to earlier who did not update the weather predictions and did not have wet or dry suits.  There are lessons to be learned from each story but condemnation is not one of them

 

There have been times when I have felt cache owners carry some measure of responsibility- the cache placed on private property that led to cachers being assaulted by the property owner may have been an unforseeable result but it was not unavoidable.

 

Here, assuming the cache was placed with whatever permission might be required (and it's hard to see how some permission would not be required), then the situation may have been foreseeable, even without being a proximate cause.  The popularity of going into such places means that people will not necessarily have the knowledge to calculate the risks involved - although I do not know if that was the situation here since mistakes can happen in any event.

 

The information in the article I quoted earlier should be required reading on both the explicit and hidden dangers of draining.  Yes, anybody going there should know that draining is dangerous and should not be done without having the maturity and responsibility to do it.  They should know not to enter a drain if there is any chance of rain.  But unfortunately if there is a cache listing, people may try to find the cache without knowing enough to make this assesment.  That might be where the real danger lies.

 

I do not know what the cache listing stated.   But in some situations even a general disclaimer that the cache could be dangerous may not be enough.  The cachers that are drawn to a listing come from many different backgrounds and have many different levels of experience.  We are inviting people to go to particular areas.   Be clear about what those areas might entail.

 

Edited June 11, 2018 by geodarts

[+Max and 99]

9 hours ago, baer2006 said:

... which doesn't make them "legal" by default . 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.

I agree with all above.

 

 

[+geodarts]

In other words to what I wrote above,  the situation here contrasted with other types of risks presented by this game.   If there is a cache on top of a tree,  I know my abilities and can easily determine if climbing is something I want to do - there is a conscious choice to do it or not.   The risk assessment is up to me.   The same thing applies if a cache is up a steep cliff, involves traversing white water,  or any number of situations where the risk is clear and can be measured directly against my skills.

 

A storm drain is a bit different.  It can seem perfectly safe when you enter.  It is not a location that many people have dealt with before and the risks may be hidden.  Those types of location may require added cautionary descriptions.   It's easy to say in hindsight that I should have checked the weather  and not entered under certain conditions.  But if I obtained permission and placed a cache in that type of location I would at least feel better if I gave an explicit  warning about the hidden dangers people may face,

 

For that reason, even in my kayak caches I note when the cache was placed and state that people should consult tide tables to avoid either strong currents or being stuck in the mud,   It should be obvious, but more information is better.

Edited June 11, 2018 by geodarts

[+bejcci]

The place, where the cache is hidden, is not sewers. It is a brook which flows in the tunnel under the city. The place is not closed for public (it does not mean, that it is safe place, none underground is) and by the way geocachers are not the only persons, who is visiting it. The others are e.g. urbex explorers. If you want to see, how it looks like there, see this video on news server Idnes. You can make your own opinion, if it is safe or not.

Weather forecast had predicted local heavy rain. Not exactly in Prague, because exact location is not easy to predict, but somewhere not so far. This incident is a big tragedy, but behavior of group of geocachers was risky and unfortunately they had bad luck. The second missing geocacher has not yet been found. The chance, that he survived is almost zero.

Edited June 11, 2018 by bejcci

[+L0ne.R]

2 hours ago, bejcci said:

The place, where the cache is hidden, is not sewers. It is a brook which flows in the tunnel under the city. The place is not closed for public (it does not mean, that it is safe place, none underground is) and by the way geocachers are not the only persons, who is visiting it. The others are e.g. urbex explorers. If you want to see, how it looks like there, see this video on news server Idnes. You can make your own opinion, if it is safe or not.

Weather forecast had predicted local heavy rain. Not exactly in Prague, because exact location is not easy to predict, but somewhere not so far. This incident is a big tragedy, but behavior of group of geocachers was risky and unfortunately they had bad luck. The second missing geocacher has not yet been found. The chance, that he survived is almost zero.

 

Thank you for the video. It gives us a better idea of the area and the underground drainage tunnels.  

 

The question remains, was this a legal placement?

Are the tunnels open to the public to explore? Is entering the tunnels without authorized permission considered a trespass? Were the cache owners given authorized permission enter and to hide a cache in the tunnels? Were they given permission to invite others to enter the tunnels to locate the cache? 

 

If I were the cache owner I would be feeling a deep sense of remorse. And I'd be very worried that the authorities would be looking for me, especially if trespassing was involved. 

 

[+noncentric]

18 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Thank you for the video. It gives us a better idea of the area and the underground drainage tunnels.  

 

The question remains, was this a legal placement?

Are the tunnels open to the public to explore? Is entering the tunnels without authorized permission considered a trespass? Were the cache owners given authorized permission enter and to hide a cache in the tunnels? Were they given permission to invite others to enter the tunnels to locate the cache?

 

The post you're replying to specifically says "The place is not closed for public".  Sounds like it is not off-limits and that it's not considered 'trespassing' to be there.

 

3 hours ago, bejcci said:

The place, where the cache is hidden, is not sewers. It is a brook which flows in the tunnel under the city. The place is not closed for public (it does not mean, that it is safe place, none underground is) and by the way geocachers are not the only persons, who is visiting it. The others are e.g. urbex explorers.

 

[+cerberus1]

3 hours ago, bejcci said:

The place, where the cache is hidden, is not sewers. It is a brook which flows in the tunnel under the city.

 

Thanks for that. I agree.   

 

Sewer can mean drainage water as well as waste. 

I think maybe translation sometimes confuses folks in an international forums,  but I really thought  the difference between a culvert/tunnel (non-potable water), and a sewer (waste water) should have been figured out by most.   

[+L0ne.R]

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC1YN9E_motolsky-potok

[+L0ne.R]

If you look at this wiki page for Motolský potok creek they have added the geocaching death to the Underground Exploration section. 

On Reddit someone posted that there are No Entry signs that are regularly disregarded. 

 

 

[+noncentric]

57 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

On Reddit someone posted that there are No Entry signs that are regularly disregarded.

Interesting.  One of the NA logs on the cache  says it's forbidden, but then a following WN log states that entry is not prohibited (according to Google Translate).  Maybe the NA log writer thinks it was a sewer line, but it sounds like it's not actually a sewer line but a stream?  It also looks like, based on the cache gallery and logs before this past weekend, that there might've been some construction and changes to the tunnel.  It's interesting to read some of those WN logs, which are presumably local cachers in the Czech community, since most of them say that the cache should not be archived and that the weather forecasts should've been heeded.

 

The Wiki article mentions that the stream is visited regularly.  I don't see anything in the Wiki saying that those visits are illegal.  And doing an image search for "Motolsky potok" shows photos of the entries and I don't see any signs near them.  Not sure how the Redditor knows there are signs where the cache was placed. Not sure I trust a Redditor that may or may not have ever set foot in Czechia over Czech geocachers posting WN logs on the cache?

[RedPiggy]

4 hours ago, noncentric said:

Interesting.  One of the NA logs on the cache  says it's forbidden, but then a following WN log states that entry is not prohibited (according to Google Translate).  Maybe the NA log writer thinks it was a sewer line, but it sounds like it's not actually a sewer line but a stream?  It also looks like, based on the cache gallery and logs before this past weekend, that there might've been some construction and changes to the tunnel.  It's interesting to read some of those WN logs, which are presumably local cachers in the Czech community, since most of them say that the cache should not be archived and that the weather forecasts should've been heeded.

 

The Wiki article mentions that the stream is visited regularly.  I don't see anything in the Wiki saying that those visits are illegal.  And doing an image search for "Motolsky potok" shows photos of the entries and I don't see any signs near them.  Not sure how the Redditor knows there are signs where the cache was placed. Not sure I trust a Redditor that may or may not have ever set foot in Czechia over Czech geocachers posting WN logs on the cache?

The WN log says: "The Czechia law of water conduit and canalizations (274/2001Sb) does not forbid entry to (any) sewer.(in this case were talking about underground water stream, not canalization)" Next sentences in the WN log are generally speaking about things like "Its their fault" and stuff like that.

 

The Motol spruit tunnels are not a canalization system, but we can liken it to a sort of water conduit. I believe it is visited regularly, i would visit it too! Visits are 100% not illegal, the place is opened for public all the time.

[+bejcci]

Posting link to two interviews (in Czech), one with responsible official from municipality and one with geocacher.

Most important ideas from first interview. "There is a security overhang of about four meters high and it must have an open drain. If anyone goes down there, he carries all the risks. From a security point of view, it can not be closed anyway." "It's definitely not a public space. But I do not remember that we would tackle unauthorized entry through the city police. "

"I went there several times and it's a beautiful building, but in such a situation I would not go out there. It has always been ensured that somebody waits somewhere and is sure of each other. In 99 percent, nothing happens, people go through it, take a shot, and safely leave." His opinion is, that the geocache should not be there, because it attracts the people to go there.

Most important ideas from second interview. The cache has 4 stars terrain nad red link to the page which describes security in underground places. And was under review and in the time of publish according to local rules. And also stated, that the weather forecast had not been suitable for underground trip.

[+Team Microdot]

1 minute ago, bejcci said:

His opinion is, that the geocache should not be there, because it attracts the people to go there.

 

I agree.

 

[+bejcci]

2 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

 

I agree.

 

 

Problem is, that gc.com is not the only website, which "advertise" the place. So if you remove the geocache, not all the visitors of the place will be eliminated. And is this geocache the only geocache in underground place, where situation can occur again? No. So my opinion is to leave the geocache on the place, but add story as part of the listing as warning for future. But let the final decision is on local reviewers and HQ.

[+JL_HSTRE]

On 6/11/2018 at 1:30 AM, 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.

 

 

What is the actual specifics of the prohibition?

I've found caches hanging in storm drains and found a cache involving UV paint written inside a culvert.

 

21 hours 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. 

 

If I go past a sign that says "Trail Closed" then any accidents there are my fault. Conversely, if a boardwalk collapses on me and the boardwalk was not in any way closed then isn't the land manager at fault for not properly maintaining their boardwalk?

 

There's a large amount of personal responsibility but if on an official, marked, open trail it would seem a certain amount of land manager responsibility too.

[+Team Microdot]

17 minutes ago, bejcci said:

 

Problem is, that gc.com is not the only website, which "advertise" the place. So if you remove the geocache, not all the visitors of the place will be eliminated. And is this geocache the only geocache in underground place, where situation can occur again? No. So my opinion is to leave the geocache on the place, but add story as part of the listing as warning for future. But let the final decision is on local reviewers and HQ.

 

I reject the idea that measures which are less than perfect are not worth taking.

 

I agree that if the cache is to remain it should be made known clearly on the cache page what has happened and that people have died seeking the cache.

 

I fear for those who seek the cache later without reading the cache page.

 

If it were my cache (which it wouldn't be - because I wouldn't place one like this in the first place) I would immediately archive it.

 

Some people seem to be up in arms at the prospect of this cache being archived. This amazes me, particularly under these circumstances.

 

[+Team DEMP]

22 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

If I go past a sign that says "Trail Closed" then any accidents there are my fault. Conversely, if a boardwalk collapses on me and the boardwalk was not in any way closed then isn't the land manager at fault for not properly maintaining their boardwalk?

 

This isn't an apples to apples comparison. The structure in this incident didn't fail.

 

Your boardwalk analogy would be more analogous to... I was standing in the boardwalk looking through those binoculars attached to the boardwalk and a rogue wave knocked me off into the ocean. Is the boardwalk owner or binocular owner responsible for you ending up in the ocean?

[+Team Microdot]

Just now, Team DEMP said:

This isn't an apples to apples comparison.

 

Nor is it meant to be, if I read it correctly.

 

If we're nitpicking though this thread is full of equally disparate comparisons.

[+Team DEMP]

I read through a lot of the notes on the cache page that was posted about by L0ne.r.  It was a highly favorite cache - 246 / +50% . For entries beyond RIP posts, it seems some folks called for immediate NA but many, which happens to match my opinion, indicated that the decision to enter the location was a bad decision.  The cache page calls out that this isn't a park and grab cache and to also be aware of bikers and dog walkers, so this isn't a place that is only frequented by some cachers going after a cache. Yes, at least 1 other has posted this in the thread but now that we can all see the cache page it, we can see there was plenty of warning. I can't tell if someone else, that same day, posted that they were going to attempt the cache but the weather reports didn't allow for it. 

One of the preferred ways to approach the US APE cache requires going through a tunnel. The page includes "Also please note that the tunnel is closed each year between roughly Nov. 1 and May 1 due to the dangerous icicles that form inside from seep water."  . I guess this cache is ok though because you get a unique icon, but if one of those icicles fell just before the closed the tunnel... 

 

[vvitty & aka]

The cache is not only reason to go to this tunnel. Several media published a video logs about this place, including information how to get there, what you could see there, and usually without any means about risk you stand in front of there, while cache clearly mentioned you have to take care about the weather forecast and not go in when any rain is forecast around.

And, same media now complains about the death, sometimes having link to their past vlogs about visiting this place just below the article...

[+noncentric]

Keep in mind that the Czech cache is a Multi-cache, not a Traditional, so cachers should be reading the cache page before starting to search for it.  And the cache page did have warnings about the risks.

 

 

6 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

There's a large amount of personal responsibility but if on an official, marked, open trail it would seem a certain amount of land manager responsibility too.

I don't understand this sentiment.  There are a lot of official, marked, open trails throughout the USA where people have died due to changes in weather conditions or even just simple mistakes by hikers. Are you saying that land managers should take responsibility for those deaths?

 -- If someone dies from a heart attack while hiking up an 'official, marked, open trail', then should the land manager be considered responsible?

 -- If someone dies from a gator attack while hiking on an 'official, marked, open trail', then should the land manager be considered responsible?

 -- If someone is struck by lightning while hiking along an 'official, marked, open trail' during a thunderstorm, then should the land manager be considered responsible?

 -- If someone slips on a 'official, marked, open trail' and breaks their leg, and there's no way for them to call for help, so they die of exposure, then should the land manager be considered responsible?

 

It just seems like there's an inherent risk in almost any activity, and participants need to consider those risks before participating.

[+BG2015]

5 hours ago, Team DEMP said:

One of the preferred ways to approach the US APE cache requires going through a tunnel. The page includes "Also please note that the tunnel is closed each year between roughly Nov. 1 and May 1 due to the dangerous icicles that form inside from seep water."  . I guess this cache is ok though because you get a unique icon, but if one of those icicles fell just before the closed the tunnel... 

 

 

I'm glad you finally brought this up, as this is the exact case that I had been thinking about.  If I end up in Washington, close to wherever this Ape is, I will be extremely incentivized to go get it. Hopefully I can make it before Groundspeak archives it as a result of this thread and MicroDot.

[+hzoi]

This is a tragic event, and it was a preventable one.  But I don't lay the primary responsibility on the cache owner.

 

I had a rather sobering experience this weekend while hunting for a high terrain cache.  It required crossing a tidal stream.  The mud on the bottom of the stream was very, very soft --  I found out the hard way that it was much softer than I had anticipated.  I sunk up to my hips in soupy, silty muck and had a very difficult time extracting myself.  It's conceivable that my life was in danger at some point, as I got pretty exhausted trying to wiggle my way back out of the mud.

 

When I got home, I saw this story had posted and thought the timing was pretty...ironic?  Apropos?

 

Could I have drowned trying to log a find?  Maybe.  I am quite happy that I did not.  I have chalked this up as yet another lesson learned on my personal limits, and I will use this as a reference point in the future when deciding at which point I draw the line and skip a geocache rather than risk going for it. 

 

I don't blame the cache owner for my experience.  Far from it - I knew the risks, and I went for it anyway.  What could have been a very bad result for me was instead a tiring afternoon that ended in muddy clothes, one more geocache find, and a learning point.  I fully recognize that, as a consenting adult responsible for my own actions, I could have walked away at any point.  I've taken a pretty self deprecating look at how I could have planned my approach better and had much less of a struggle.

 

Before we moved to tidewater Virginia, we lived in El Paso, Texas, and we visited White Sands National Monument on several occasions.  Every time I went, I was cognizant of the dangers of hiking in the desert and planned accordingly.  One summer day, a French couple succumbed to the desert heat and died in the monument.  That same day, I was maybe twenty miles east of White Sands, subject to the same heat and conditions, chipping away at a large series of geocaches.  Had I also succumbed to the heat and died that day, I certainly see how the owner of the cache series might feel some moral responsibility for the fact that I died looking for their geocaches.  But I think my failure to take conditions into account and properly prepare for, or abstain from, my hike would be the proximate cause, just as it was for the poor couple nearby, and not the existence of a few dozen PET preform geocaches.  Put another way, the geocaches might have been the reason I decided to go there that day, but they would not have been the contributing factor to my death.

[+Mn-treker]

Wow this topic morphed into legalities.

I knew that would happen.

In these very forums it was stated that a CO in Texas was sued by a cache seeker. CO hid it up a tree, you had to climb. Seeker fell out and broke his back. Judge ruled against the CO.

Under attractive nuisance law.

CO lured seeker to climb tree. CO had to pay big time. Groundspeak likes to say they are not responsible for injuries.

Well a reviewer had to approve the hide.

A good lawyer can walk right through that loop hole. Also Groundspeak statement does not protect Cache owners. Only maybe Groundspeak.

We all take risks in all that we do.

But some like to skirt around the law.

A very promenet cacher here heard that some cachers went into the sewer for one mile after his. It was not even in the sewer. The CO went balistic. Another cacher went down a curb drain into the sewer. Cops and city went balistic.

No hiding geocache in the sewer.

No trespass into the sewer. Just because a hide is in the sewer does not mean it is legal. Think before you hide.

And think before you seek. 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

On 6/11/2018 at 6:40 AM, noncentric said:

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

While the rules may be different,  the first line in the Hiding guidelines is to obey local laws.

 

"All local laws and land management policies apply. This refers to both the placement of the geocache and the journey required to reach it. Do not place caches in a location that requires or encourages geocachers to trespass or pass markers that prohibit access."

[+Team Microdot]

13 hours ago, noncentric said:

It just seems like there's an inherent risk in almost any activity, and participants need to consider those risks before participating.

 

Including cache owners as equal participants.

[+Team Microdot]

3 hours ago, Mn-treker said:

A very promenet cacher here heard that some cachers went into the sewer for one mile after his. It was not even in the sewer. The CO went balistic. Another cacher went down a curb drain into the sewer. Cops and city went balistic.

No hiding geocache in the sewer.

No trespass into the sewer. Just because a hide is in the sewer does not mean it is legal. Think before you hide.

And think before you seek. 

 

I understand that sewers in particular can harbour build-ups of invisible noxious gases which can render a person unconcious. Worth remembering.

 

[+noncentric]

11 hours ago, BG2015 said:

I'm glad you finally brought this up, as this is the exact case that I had been thinking about.  If I end up in Washington, close to wherever this Ape is, I will be extremely incentivized to go get it. Hopefully I can make it before Groundspeak archives it as a result of this thread and MicroDot.

When the tunnel is closed for the winter, then the doors to the tunnel are physically closed.  The only way to go through the tunnel when it's closed is to cut through the locks that are placed on it by the state.  Also, the tunnel is not the only way to get to the APE cache.  There is a hiking trail that approaches from the other side of the cache, and that trail is often hiked in the winter.

 

2 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

While the rules may be different,  the first line in the Hiding guidelines is to obey local laws.

 

"All local laws and land management policies apply. This refers to both the placement of the geocache and the journey required to reach it. Do not place caches in a location that requires or encourages geocachers to trespass or pass markers that prohibit access."

And there have been numerous Czech locals that have stated the Czech cache was not placed illegally.

 

[vvitty & aka]

21 hours ago, Team DEMP said:

I read through a lot of the notes on the cache page that was posted about by L0ne.r.  It was a highly favorite cache - 246 / +50% . For entries beyond RIP posts, it seems some folks called for immediate NA but many, which happens to match my opinion, indicated that the decision to enter the location was a bad decision.  The cache page calls out that this isn't a park and grab cache and to also be aware of bikers and dog walkers, so this isn't a place that is only frequented by some cachers going after a cache. Yes, at least 1 other has posted this in the thread but now that we can all see the cache page it, we can see there was plenty of warning. I can't tell if someone else, that same day, posted that they were going to attempt the cache but the weather reports didn't allow for it. 

 

I could reply to your last sentence, confirming there was another group planning to do same cache same day, announcing their intention few days before in the facebook community group, to guide there a visitors from far location who comes mainly because of this underground. This person received couple of calls and messages asking if they are ok, announcing than on the same place they regret to visit the place due to the weather conditions, although they consider this as tough decision that time.

The main reason for them was online radar maps, running by official Czech meteorology institute, showing since the morning rains and heavy storm clouds about 50 - 100 miles from Prague in the perimeter of 200 degrees on the North, West and Souths. First records of clouds appears on this radar in Prague suburbs before noon, becoming bigger on each 10 minutes update. Unfortunately, data from Saturday are no longer visible there http://portal.chmi.cz/files/portal/docs/meteo/rad/inca-cz/short.html?prod=czrad_maxz_cappi2&opa1=0.5&opa2=0.75&nselect=6&nselect_fct=0&lang=EN

Please note that in Czech weather forecast, storm warning was on yellow for all our country, sized like South Carolina state, since mid of last week. Yellow means low risk for usual life but already shows high probability of heavy rains. I have to say, on Saturday 3am to 4am, I saw thunderbolts from the window of my home in Prague.

 

Obviously, this is a sad situation for all, but is difficult for me to understand their decision to make it.

 

... sorry for my English, I know more technical terms :-) hope it is understandable. 

 

[My right profile link is not the one embedded by forum, but this one : https://www.geocaching.com/p/default.aspx?u=vvitty%20%26%20aka ]

Edited June 13, 2018 by vvitty & aka
profile

[+hzoi]

11 hours ago, Mn-treker said:

In these very forums it was stated that a CO in Texas was sued by a cache seeker. CO hid it up a tree, you had to climb. Seeker fell out and broke his back. Judge ruled against the CO.

Under attractive nuisance law.

CO lured seeker to climb tree. CO had to pay big time.

 

If you could please link to the original mention of that case, it would be helpful.  As an attorney (though not a personal injury attorney, I admit), I have my doubts that it's that simple.  The "attractive nuisance" doctrine deals with landowner responsibility.  It states that a landowner is responsible for securing property that contains a dangerous condition that might attract and injure trespassing children.  (Put another way, it's the reason your homeowner's insurance policy requires you to put up a fence if you have a backyard pool.).  The key word here is children.  It doesn't apply to consenting adults.

 

I just did two Lexis-Nexis case law searches, one for "geocache" and one for "geocaching," not limited to any jurisdiction or topic.  The same eight cases came up in both searches; none involved lawsuits by a geocache seeker against a geocache owner.

 

Gillim v. Colvin, a 2013 unreported federal district court case from Illinois, in which the plaintiff appealed a disability ruling, claiming among other things that her ability to geocache has been greatly diminished by her disability.

 

People v. Heim, a 2012 California Court of Appeals case, in which Mr. Heim appealed certain matters following his assault conviction for opening fire on geocachers, who he thought were trespassing on his land.  (Forum discussion here.)

 

Bridgeville Rifle & Pistol Club, Ltd. v. Small, a 2017 Delaware Supreme Court case in which plaintiffs were challenging firearms restrictions on Delaware public lands.  Geocaching is mentioned in passing as an allowed activity on public land.

 

Weirich v. Colvin, a related case to Gillim v. Colvin, above.

 

Village of Crooksville v. Love, a 2009 Ohio Court of Appeals case involving a dispute on a village easement that crosses private land.  Geocaching is listed as an activity that is allowed on the easement.

 

Ellis v. City of Overland Park, a 2013 Kansas Court of Appeals case involving worker's compensation claims; geocaching is mentioned as a side activity that the plaintiff enjoys.

 

People v. Levin, a 2013 California Court of Appeal case involving appeal of a murder conviction.  The case reveals that Levin stabbed his wife, put his dog in the microwave, and then drove to Canada.  It's also mentioned that Levin occasionally went geocaching with his children.

 

Deinlein v. Commissioner of Social Security, a 2011 Oregon federal district court case, involving appeals on a disability rating; geocaching is listed as one of the plaintiff's activities.

 

That doesn't mean that there isn't a Texas geocaching lawsuit out there somewhere, but if there is one, either it never went to court, or if it did, the cache owner didn't appeal the judgment. 

 

I did find one article on a Nevada settlement that involved geocaching: claimant was hunting for a geocache that was part of a STEM festival when they broke through old boards capping an abandoned mine.  The cache wasn't located in the mine.  The cacher filed an insurance claim with the company that covered the landowner and the STEM organization that had rented the ranch for the festival.  The insurance company initially offered half the claimed amount, stating that they didn't know about the abandoned mine and the cacher had some fault by not watching where he walked.  When it was revealed that the landowner had offered to provide a map of abandoned mines on the property to the festival to give out to attendees, but the festival hadn't followed up, the case was settled for almost as much as the geocacher initially sought.

[+K13]

A thread from 2011 talked about a case in Texas, settled out of court prior to final judgement.  The OP claimed to be under a gag order and couldn't/wouldn't give many details, other thann to say the injury-causing cache was on Corps of Engineers lands.  General consensus from the Texas forum regulars is that the event didn't happen, or it involved cachers who weren't very social and never spoke of it.

[+hzoi]

1 hour ago, K13 said:

A thread from 2011 talked about a case in Texas, settled out of court prior to final judgement.  The OP claimed to be under a gag order and couldn't/wouldn't give many details, other thann to say the injury-causing cache was on Corps of Engineers lands.  General consensus from the Texas forum regulars is that the event didn't happen, or it involved cachers who weren't very social and never spoke of it.

 

Thanks for the link.  Looks like I missed that discussion.  If nothing else, it was awesome just to see @Clan Riffster posts again.

 

(edit: and also, no judge ruled if it was settled out of court, so that's one point clarified)

Edited June 13, 2018 by hzoi

[+K13]

6 minutes ago, hzoi said:

 

Thanks for the link.  Looks like I missed that discussion.  If nothing else, it was awesome just to see @Clan Riffster posts again.

 

(edit: and also, no judge ruled if it was settled out of court, so that's one point clarified)

 

And a few other Forum Oldtimers there also.  Mr. Yuck and Knowschad were a couple names I miss as well.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

16 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

 

I understand that sewers in particular can harbour build-ups of invisible noxious gases which can render a person unconcious. Worth remembering.

 

A car full of cachers at the end of a long day could have the same effect...just sayin'.

[+Mn-treker]

Well of course I can't get a link to that forum. But it looks like a few people did find mention of it. I only remembered that it went to court and the forum originator stated judge ruled. Point is that we as COs have absolutely no protection from law suits if seekers are injured. Here in Minnesota many cities that have rules about geocaching and say both feet on the ground. Also if a land owner gives permission to recreate on his land and does not charge a fee. Then land owner is asolved of any injury. But the hider just might be liable.

All those COs putting disclaimers on cache pages. Ha! Ha! Good luck with that. Each state will rule a bit different.

But most will say. You lured the seeker into a known danger. Therfore you are liable. But the best way to find out is call your attourney general's office. 

After all look at how many home owners get sued when the kids down the block jump into your pool and drown. Or climb your tree and fall out. The home owner always gets nailed with attractive nuisance. These are also trespass involved. But like I have said before think before you hide. 

[+CAVinoGal]

19 minutes ago, Mn-treker said:

... But like I have said before think before you hide. 

 

Likewise, use common sense when  seeking.  If you are uncomfortable about the location, bypass and go for something else.  Snakes, poison oak or ivy, ticks, tricky terrain - just don't go there if you don't want to!!!   

 

As a hider - don't place a cache in a dangerous location.  I realize that can be subjective, and the higher terrain ratings are inherently more "dangerous" than 1's and 1.5's, but if there's an obvious hazard associated with the location, either make it known or just find someplace else to put the cache!

 

It's unfortunate and tragic that this happened, and who is to "blame" is not always clear - the weather played a part (could that have been predicted, preventing entrance to the tunnel during inclement conditions?) but so did the cache owner, and the cache seeker(s).

[+barefootjeff]

2 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:

As a hider - don't place a cache in a dangerous location.  I realize that can be subjective, and the higher terrain ratings are inherently more "dangerous" than 1's and 1.5's, but if there's an obvious hazard associated with the location, either make it known or just find someplace else to put the cache!

 

Making it known is the tricky part these days, particularly for traditionals, as the official app now hides all but the first few words of the description and says not to look at it unless you get stuck. Likewise for attributes. I suppose about all you can do now is somehow work the warning into the title.

[+JL_HSTRE]

On 6/12/2018 at 3:05 PM, noncentric said:

I don't understand this sentiment.  There are a lot of official, marked, open trails throughout the USA where people have died due to changes in weather conditions or even just simple mistakes by hikers. Are you saying that land managers should take responsibility for those deaths?

 -- If someone dies from a heart attack while hiking up an 'official, marked, open trail', then should the land manager be considered responsible?

 -- If someone dies from a gator attack while hiking on an 'official, marked, open trail', then should the land manager be considered responsible?

 -- If someone is struck by lightning while hiking along an 'official, marked, open trail' during a thunderstorm, then should the land manager be considered responsible?

 -- If someone slips on a 'official, marked, open trail' and breaks their leg, and there's no way for them to call for help, so they die of exposure, then should the land manager be considered responsible?

 

It just seems like there's an inherent risk in almost any activity, and participants need to consider those risks before participating.

 

What if the trail is susceptible to flash floods, but this isn't indicated by any signage?

 

Or to use my recent vacation: most waterfall-related deaths are people climbing the falls, being careless at the top, etc. What if I'm standing at a designated overlook on an official trail not doing anything improper when part of the overlook collapses and I fall to my death?

 

(Not saying either is a direct comparison to the sewer death, but this thread has branched out to deal with larger issues of land manager/owner responsibility.)

[+hzoi]

9 hours ago, Mn-treker said:

Here in Minnesota many cities that have rules about geocaching and say both feet on the ground. Also if a land owner gives permission to recreate on his land and does not charge a fee. Then land owner is absolved of any injury. But the hider just might be liable.

...

After all look at how many home owners get sued when the kids down the block jump into your pool and drown. Or climb your tree and fall out. The home owner always gets nailed with attractive nuisance. These are also trespass involved.

 

I understand your overall point, but while property owners have potential liability for injuries when people enter their land, that duty of care does not necessarily extend to a geocache owner.  Every scenario you describe above involves property ownership.  The city rules you describe are set that way to limit potential liability to the city as the property owner.  If a cache is only allowed on the ground, then there is less risk incurred by the city.

 

When insurance companies settle cases like this, it's not necessarily because there is liability; it's because the reality may be that it's cheaper to settle for an amount that is less than the cost of litigating the issue in court.  Billable hours can pack a punch.  Or so I hear -- thankfully, as a government hack, I don't have to account for my day in fractions of an hour.

[+thebruce0]

3 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

What if I'm standing at a designated overlook on an official trail not doing anything improper when part of the overlook collapses and I fall to my death?

 

Sort of like what could have happened here... thankfully they survived, but, could someone have been sued? If they died, maybe then?  Should there have been an impassable fence alnog the marked trail? Or if someone found a way around that, maybe an alarm system with immediate security response so lessen the chance someone might sue them for being dumb?  At what point does a responsible party no longer bear responsibility if something bad happens to someone within their sphere of influence or ownership?

[+Fugads]

There are probably lessons to be learned from other outdoor recreation activities. The example that comes to mind is rock climbing. Climbers often develop new crags by installing bolts in the cliffs to make climbs safe, but I have not heard of any liability placed on those who actually are installing the bolts. In lots of places, the bolts are old and rusty, or maybe they were not placed properly. And often there is little or no record of when and how the bolt was placed. As a climber you usually have no way of knowing if the bolt you are clipping and relying on for your safety is going to perform as you expect. It is understood that as a participant in this activity, you are taking responsibility for these risks. Yes, someone placing a bunch of bolts in a crag does entice other climbers to the area, but ultimately you have decide whether you are going to climb it. I'd be curious if this debate as to holding bolt-placers liable for bad placements has ever played out?

[+bflentje]

On 6/12/2018 at 2:05 PM, noncentric said:

Keep in mind that the Czech cache is a Multi-cache, not a Traditional, so cachers should be reading the cache page before starting to search for it.  And the cache page did have warnings about the risks.

 

 

I don't understand this sentiment.  There are a lot of official, marked, open trails throughout the USA where people have died due to changes in weather conditions or even just simple mistakes by hikers. Are you saying that land managers should take responsibility for those deaths?

 -- If someone dies from a heart attack while hiking up an 'official, marked, open trail', then should the land manager be considered responsible?

 -- If someone dies from a gator attack while hiking on an 'official, marked, open trail', then should the land manager be considered responsible?

 -- If someone is struck by lightning while hiking along an 'official, marked, open trail' during a thunderstorm, then should the land manager be considered responsible?

 -- If someone slips on a 'official, marked, open trail' and breaks their leg, and there's no way for them to call for help, so they die of exposure, then should the land manager be considered responsible?

 

It just seems like there's an inherent risk in almost any activity, and participants need to consider those risks before participating.

 

It seems like only in America that the population demands a zero-risk life. It's actually kind of embarrassing.

 

[majkaz]

Seems that people are still following this topic, so here are few relevant facts to clear the situation a bit. I am a Czech national, living there and know Prague and the general area where it happened (lived near the location for a year). I don't know the caches above what is stated in listing, and the exact location - the underground brook - just from videos and descriptions from people who have found both caches located near Motolsky potok.

 

- There are two caches to be found at this location: the GC1YN9E - Motolsky potok (multi) and the GC1NW48 - Moonshaft (mystery)

- Both were placed before the ban on underground caches and were grandfathered.

- The access is not prohibited (not posted as mentioned on reddit) and not closed (and cannot be closed, would increase flooding risk to the area).

- Geocachers are not the only people entering. The same media, who are now condemning geocaching are linking their own reports and videos from exact the same place.

- As mentioned, it is strictly speaking a brook put underground. There are several branches of rainwater drainage flowing there.

- The access has changed since the cache was put there. Not sure how it was initally, at the moment is not exactly easy, some may even need a rope, so you cannot get in "just by mistake".

- Both have the warnings there, better said link to whole list of rules for entering underground (the danger of flooding and drowning is prominent there, no way to miss it)

- According to one interview of the surviving woman (they had to search in branching tunnels), it seems they tried to find the second one. This one have even more severe warnings, including you should first find caches in easier underground locations. This one gives as well a warning that you could spend several hours underground and that it could be split into two days. One of the last logs mentions people spending 2 hours there.

- The group was not from Prague, they had to travel at least an hour to get in the area

- All were adults, 25+ - just to clear the "girl" definition.

- The rain was forecasted: there were severe rain warnings for almost a week already, and the and the rains were indeed falling during the week just to put fine point on it. The local consensus (confirmed from another group who planned to find one of the caches on the same day and with heavy heart aborted) was that they should change their plan already at home, not even going to Prague with this idea.

- The woman mentioned that they checked the weather before entering and it was fine. A local cacher living near-by mentioned that it cannot be true and we have seen radar pictures and photos from roughly the same location confirming this. It was not raining at the moment, but the weather was a typical just before a summer storm weather with storm clouds etc. On weather radar, it was clear that there are raging storms some 100-50 km away, moving in direction Prague. She might be speaking the truth as she sees it; but it doesn't make it correct in this case.

- I am not 100% sure, but according to the interview, they had no contact above ground at all, from the moment they entered - something recommended as well. They had no way to check the weather changes.

 

And now, my personal opinion:

You cannot exactly predict local storm but you can see that the high risk is/was there. The warning just for this were spelled out, including all the precautions you should take. I wouldn't go for several hours in an underground tunnel with posted flood warnings if it wasn't clear that there cannot be rain in the area at all. I wouldn't gamble that the predicted heavy rain (forecast for whole country) will fall elsewhere.

They made several mistakes - first by even starting in the weather we had and still have here. Then, their second mistake was to enter into the sewer at the time. The rain was not a freak one, you had the typical weather before a hot-weather storm. Trying for the second cache (if my interpretation from the interview is correct) would just compound the chain of ill-advised decisions, keeping them in the underground even longer (few logs on this cache mention finding the first cache as a quasi "stage one").

 

It doesn't mean that I cannot feel sad for them and sympathise. I think everybody made several grave mistakes in their lives. We were just lucky to survive these, some of their group were not as lucky. Just to be precise with this - the missing man was not found yet. Edit: The man might be found but it couldn't be confirmed yet that it is the same person. It came just out in the news.

 

As for the discussion above - keep in mind, that "attractive nuisance law" doesn't apply in this case. You cannot compare legal situation elsewhere, the laws are completely different including some basic principles.

Edited June 15, 2018 by majkaz

[+JL_HSTRE]

On 6/14/2018 at 10:49 AM, thebruce0 said:

 

Sort of like what could have happened here... thankfully they survived, but, could someone have been sued? If they died, maybe then?  Should there have been an impassable fence alnog the marked trail? Or if someone found a way around that, maybe an alarm system with immediate security response so lessen the chance someone might sue them for being dumb?  At what point does a responsible party no longer bear responsibility if something bad happens to someone within their sphere of influence or ownership?

 

The example you linked to involved people going off trail. The property owner should be off the hook.

[+JL_HSTRE]

4 hours ago, majkaz said:

The access has changed since the cache was put there. Not sure how it was initally, at the moment is not exactly easy, some may even need a rope, so you cannot get in "just by mistake".

 

If you need your own rope or ladder so go somewhere you probably shouldn't go there. If your presence was permitted stairs or a ladder would be provided. 

 

Of course, Europeans are notorious for their exploration of abandoned places and areas that, in the US, would be strictly off limits.

[+Viajero Perdido]

9 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Europeans are notorious for their exploration of abandoned places and areas that, in the US, would be strictly off limits.

 

Interesting choice of word.

 

I guess Europeans have a tradition of freedom, of liberty.

 

I used to hear those words a lot more often.

[+thebruce0]

52 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

The example you linked to involved people going off trail. The property owner should be off the hook.

 

But what is sufficient? Do they need to say off-trail access is prohibited? Or is "please stay on the marked trails" sufficient? If there's no fence line, most people consider that publicly accessible land, even if sensitive nature. You see it's pretty vague, they could argue there wasn't sufficient warning that off trail is life-threateningly dangerous. So at what point does that line come into play? That was the point of the initial comment. What is considered a "stupid idea" (fault the victim) vs insufficient warning (faulting the property owner)?

 

(not that I don't agree - they went off trail and the land owner should not incur any fault; that's my opinion and afaik that's the direction the law ruled)

(and in this case I like the rock climbing bolt analogy - I don't believe the cache owner should be at fault either)