Who would be responsible for injuries?

[+HunterandSamuel]

I'm curious who would be responsible financially if a serious injury happened finding this cache (below) that we came across a while ago. The cache owner, the landowner, or the geocacher? It would be an interesting litigation case.  GS would not be responsible, we sign (click on) the online form stating so. 

 

This was a cache hidden in an abandoned structure out in the boondocks with just the foundation and a few walls standing, no ceiling. The floor was weak and caved in in places, a huge gaping hole in one area. Covered with snow, anyone could fall through the hole and suffer serious injuries. The cache owner's warning about being careful where you walk when the flooring is covered with snow...would not save her from litigation. In fact, it could hurt her case for knowing beforehand that this is a dangerous area to hide a cache.  But even in the summer months, the flooring had deteriorated so bad, it didn't matter how careful you were walking on it, it could collapse at anytime I'm sure. I wonder who would be responsible if anyone got hurt...the landowner, the geocacher who hid the cache, or the cacher for stepping in there to find the cache?  When we got there, there were "No Trespassing" signs all over the property but I don't know if they were recently placed or were there when the cacher hid the cache. We asked the last person who was there and he didn't remember signs being up. 

 

Also share your adventurous and dangerous cache finds! 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 3, 2020 by HunterandSamuel

[+ras_oscar]

As adults we are all ultimately responsible for out own safety. I have on 2 previous occasions encountered caches that I choose not to retrieve due to concerns about my personal safety. Both were at the bottom of disused wells. One of these I could actually see the container at the bottom of the well. It was at the business end of a fairly long hike too. It hurt to leave them behind but it hurt less than breaking a leg and being stuck in the bottom of the well until someone came along to help

 

Many people hide caches to share interesting locations with the community. If I encountered such a structure  I wanted to share, I would probably hide the cache nearby but not physically in the structure, and so state in the description page.

Edited February 3, 2020 by ras_oscar

[+thebruce0]

If it's private property and there's no trespassing signs up, legitimate signs, then geocacher finding it would be responsible. Regardless of the reason, they chose to enter private property by trespassing.  Whether a case could be made to hold the owner accountable retroactively for having trespassed previously to place a container there may depend on local laws and the argumentation from the geocache finder. IANAL. I don't think the property owner could be held accountable - especially if the signs were up. If there were signs publicly allowing access in any way, then there might be an argument. But that much I feel would be a more localized judgment. Not sure. But guaranteed the trespasser caught would be charged with trespassing.

 

I would hope it wouldn't turn out like a burglar who would charge a homeowner for breaking a leg while breaking and entering the house.

 

ETA: And HQ wouldn't be responsible at all. They're just a listing service, and all responsibility is passed on to the owner who agrees to the TOS.

Edited February 3, 2020 by thebruce0

[+HunterandSamuel]

4 minutes ago, ras_oscar said:

As adults we are all ultimately responsible for out own safety. I have on rare occasions encountered caches that I choose not to retrieve due to concerns about my personal safety. Both were at the bottom of historic disused wells. One of these I could actually see the container at the bottom of the well. It was at the business end of a fairly long hike too. It hurt to leave them behind but it hurt less than breaking a leg and being stuck in the bottom of the well until someone came along to help.

 

Whoa!  At the bottom of a well is definitely dangerous!  There was a cache we decided to give up on finding. It was in our favorite hiking forest. It required cachers to walk across a fallen tree above a creek to get to the cache. Since breaking my ankle, my balance is not perfect. My husband wanted to do it but I talked him out of it. lol Not worth falling into the creek full of rocks. But also, it was a marsh on the other side and full of ticks (a fishman nearby warned us of the ticks). Not worth getting lyme disease either. 

[+Max and 99]

There was a big forum discussion the last time the liability wording changed. 

[+HunterandSamuel]

8 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

If it's private property and there's no trespassing signs up, legitimate signs, then geocacher finding it would be responsible. Regardless of the reason, they chose to enter private property by trespassing.  Whether a case could be made to hold the owner accountable retroactively for having trespassed previously to place a container there may depend on local laws and the argumentation from the geocache finder. IANAL. I don't think the property owner could be held accountable - especially if the signs were up. If there were signs publicly allowing access in any way, then there might be an argument. But that much I feel would be a more localized judgment. Not sure. But guaranteed the trespasser caught would be charged with trespassing.

 

I would hope it wouldn't turn out like a burglar who would charge a homeowner for breaking a leg while breaking and entering the house.

 

An excellent point. Thanks. 

[+L0ne.R]

20 years and I've never heard of a lawsuit against a cache owner. Does anyone know if it's happened?

[+HunterandSamuel]

1 minute ago, Max and 99 said:

There was a big forum discussion the last time the liability wording changed. 

 

I bet it was a hot topic! I tried searching "litigation" and "who is responsible of injuries" but couldn't find anything. Something did pop up from 2011 but it wasn't the topic I was trying to find. Thanks, Max and 99! 

[+Touchstone]

42 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Please disregard this if this has already been discussed.

Been discussed many times with similar entrenched outcomes. Disregarding as suggested. 

[+HunterandSamuel]

5 minutes ago, Touchstone said:

Been discussed many times with similar entrenched outcomes. Disregarding as suggested. 

 

 

Thanks. Do you have links? I couldn't find any and didn't want to duplicate a topic. 

[+HunterandSamuel]

13 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

20 years and I've never heard of a lawsuit against a cache owner. Does anyone know if it's happened?

 

 

Good question. I'm wondering if "geocacher" would even be mentioned in the personal injury lawsuits formal document or even in a news article. When geocaching.com first began, did they have legal notices of who is responsible or was it until after an injury was reported that they had one written up. Just curious. 

[+Mudfrog]

I feel that I have a pretty good head on my shoulders so believe that I use good judgement on such caches. There have been a few that were up high, 45 feet plus, that I had to give some thought to before attempting. On those, I tried to look at it from all angles,,,, how dangerous, how bad could I get hurt, was I alone, and how long to get real help if needed. In my mind, this is all on me if I decide to go for it and end up getting hurt.

 

At the same time, I have no doubt someone else will try to blame someone else (cache owner/property owner/Groundspeak) if he attempted and something happened to him. This is the society we live in these days. For this reason, I ended up archiving a cache that I placed high in a tree. The 2 or 3 cachers that actually did it really enjoyed the cache but I got to thinking about the consequences if someone did get hurt trying to grab it. It would bother me to no end if something bad happened but there was also that knowing that a lawsuit was certainly possible.

 

To answer the OP's question, I would imagine that, depending on the circumstances, a lawsuit could be brought against each or even all parties involved. The cache mentioned in the OP sounds like one I'd really enjoy so I'd hate to see it go away. However, with the "no trespassing" signs, I would have to log a needs archived if I came across them.

[+HunterandSamuel]

Here's one lawsuit against a geocacher but not because anyone was injured. It's because he placed his container near railroad tracks and the bombsquad had to blow it up. He was being sued for trespassing.  The thread was written in 2013 on this forum. Anyway, I just wanted to know who would be responsible in the case I described in my first post. Being fairly new at this and I'm sure there are other newbies, it's a good topic to bring up as a reminder to place your cache hides carefully. 

 

https://forums.geocaching.com/GC/index.php?/topic/52574-geo-court/&tab=comments#comment-615854

 

Edited February 3, 2020 by HunterandSamuel

[+HunterandSamuel]

2 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:

At the same time, I have no doubt someone else will try to blame someone else (cache owner/property owner/Groundspeak) if he attempted and something happened to him. This is the society we live in these days. For this reason, I ended up archiving a cache that I placed high in a tree. The 2 or 3 cachers that actually did it really enjoyed the cache but I got to thinking about the consequences if someone did get hurt trying to grab it. It would bother me to no end if something bad happened but there was also that knowing that a lawsuit was certainly possible.

 

Thanks for that post.  I'm now also thinking of archiving a cache. It's a guardrail on a country road but some cache finders have mentioned a lot of traffic on Sundays. That's when most geocache. This is concerning. It would bother me to no end too if someone was harmed.  At the time we hid it, I didn't notice a lot of traffic. I'm glad I started this thread. It's an eye opener. I read just now to rethink where you place guardrail caches. If a non-geocacher is injured because of a geocacher searching for a cache on a busy road and not paying attention and causing an accident, the CO is responsible.  ANon-cachers do not sign GS's disclaimers.  

[+HunterandSamuel]

15 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:

To answer the OP's question, I would imagine that, depending on the circumstances, a lawsuit could be brought against each or even all parties involved. The cache mentioned in the OP sounds like one I'd really enjoy so I'd hate to see it go away. However, with the "no trespassing" signs, I would have to log a needs archived if I came across them.

 

I think I agree with you about all being responsible...the landowner (if the no trespassing signs were not placed at the time of the injury but from what I'm reading,  even if they were, it's not a legal disclaimer), the CO and the geocacher.  When we found the cache location and saw the NT signs, we told the reviewer what we had found and it was archived. Also, the CO's warning about being careful where you walked...it didn't say the floor was dangerous and there was a gaping hole that could be covered by snow! We discovered it when we got there. Still, with that warning and the NT signs, my husband was still itching to go in.   I wonder how many wives have saved their husbands from injury? lol

[+Michaelcycle]

1 hour ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Please disregard this if this has already been discussed. I'm curious who would be responsible financially if a serious injury happened finding this cache (below) that we came across a while ago. The cache owner, the landowner, or the geocacher? It would be an interesting litigation case.  GS would not be responsible, we sign (click on) the online form stating so. 

 

<snip>

I suggest you read this thread:

Girl Dies in Czech Republic

Unfortunate circumstance that killed two people

Lots of references to possible lawsuits, especially in the latter half of the discussion

 

These are not the only people who have died as a direct result of geocaching. A gentleman fell through a gap in a bridge to his death some years back. I think it was in Germany.

That brings up another point: this is a global game and tort law varies widely from place to place. Do not think that geocache placements should be viewed strictly from a United States perspective as regards liability.

[+Korichnovui]

34 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:

 

For this reason, I ended up archiving a cache that I placed high in a tree. The 2 or 3 cachers that actually did it really enjoyed the cache but I got to thinking about the consequences if someone did get hurt trying to grab it. It would bother me to no end if something bad happened but there was also that knowing that a lawsuit was certainly possible.

 

This is exactly what is preventing me from making an underwater cache where I live. I love the river where I’m at, and I spend a lot of time on it in the summer, and have often fantasized placing a waterproof cache about 8-10 feet deep somewhere. But I always hesitate. The current is strong, the temperature is somewhat cold even in August (maybe as high as 67 degrees), and people do drown in the river from time to time.

[+cerberus1]

1 hour ago, HunterandSamuel said:

I'm curious who would be responsible financially if a serious injury happened finding this cache (below) that we came across a while ago. 

The cache owner, the landowner, or the geocacher? It would be an interesting litigation case.  GS would not be responsible, we sign (click on) the online form stating so. 

This was a cache hidden in an abandoned structure out in the boondocks with just the foundation and a few walls standing, no ceiling. The floor was weak and caved in in places, a huge gaping hole in one area. Covered with snow, anyone could fall through the hole and suffer serious injuries. The cache owner's warning about being careful where you walk when the flooring is covered with snow...would not save her from litigation. In fact, it could hurt her case for knowing beforehand that this is a dangerous area to hide a cache.  But even in the summer months, the flooring had deteriorated so bad, it didn't matter how careful you were walking on it, it could collapse at anytime I'm sure. I wonder who would be responsible if anyone got hurt...the landowner, the geocacher who hid the cache, or the cacher for stepping in there to find the cache?  When we got there, there were "No Trespassing" signs all over the property but I don't know if they were recently placed or were there when the cacher hid the cache. We asked the last person who was there and he didn't remember signs being up. 

 

This is one of those "You don't have to do every cache..." things.  Laws are different everywhere.  Common sense kicking in helps..

We couldn't do most of what folks in Europe can do under cities.  

I don't think there's anywhere that someone trespassing wouldn't be the one at fault.

 - That doesn't mean someone won't try to sue.  A town near us had a burglar fall through the skylight of a house not theirs.  They sued the homeowner because they had a untethered ladder leaning against the house in the back.  Lost of course...

 

I try not to go to caches with less than 2 in terrain.  We have two 5T caches. 

"Danger" isn't something the site (so far...) is willing to get into.

 - All the cliff, tree/mountain climbs, distance, water travel, caver, rope-use caches would go bye-bye.

This hobby would end up a game just like any of the other location-based games out there...

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Whoa!  At the bottom of a well is definitely dangerous!

So are tree-climbing caches. So are cliffside caches. So are underwater caches. So are underground caches. So are boating caches. So are lots of other caches.

 

As the Geocaching.com Disclaimer says, "Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache." And also, "Geocaching, hiking, backpacking and other outdoor activities involve risk to both persons and property."

 

But for many caches, the biggest risk statistically speaking is the drive to the trailhead. No one seems to pay much attention to that though.

[+HunterandSamuel]

24 minutes ago, Michaelcycle said:

I suggest you read this thread:

Girl Dies in Czech Republic

Unfortunate circumstance that killed two people

Lots of references to possible lawsuits, especially in the latter half of the discussion

 

These are not the only people who have died as a direct result of geocaching. A gentleman fell through a gap in a bridge to his death some years back. I think it was in Germany.

That brings up another point: this is a global game and tort law varies widely from place to place. Do not think that geocache placements should be viewed strictly from a United States perspective as regards liability.

 

Thanks for sharing the link. My thoughts and prayers are with the little girl's surviving family. How tragic and so sad.

 

You said: Do not think that geocache placements should be viewed strictly from a United States perspective as regards liability.

 

I was sharing a dangerous cache here in the United States that my husband and I found and in that particular case, who would be responsible of injuries. 

 

 

Edited February 3, 2020 by HunterandSamuel

[+HunterandSamuel]

2 minutes ago, niraD said:

So are tree-climbing caches. So are cliffside caches. So are underwater caches. So are underground caches. So are boating caches. So are lots of other caches.

 

Of course. 

 

2 minutes ago, niraD said:

 

As the Geocaching.com Disclaimer says, "Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache." And also, "Geocaching, hiking, backpacking and other outdoor activities involve risk to both persons and property."

 

I am aware of GS disclaimers. The question is, in the cache that I found...who would be responsible. Because GS says cache seekers assume all risk does not mean the landowner and CO can not be sued, only that GS can not be sued. 

[RuideAlmeida]

1 minute ago, HunterandSamuel said:

The question is, in the cache that I found...who would be responsible.

 

Just take the word "geocache" out of the equation and you probably have the answer already.

[+HunterandSamuel]

Just now, RuideAlmeida said:

 

Just take the word "geocache" out of the equation and you probably have the answer already.

 

Well, this is true.  But here's another way of looking at it... there are three parties involved (the landowner, the CO, and the geocacher) and an injury would not have happened if not for geocaching for a cache. 

 

PS. In this case there were no injuries, thankfully. 

[+Michaelcycle]

3 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

 

Thanks for sharing the link. My thoughts and prayers are with the little girl's surviving family. How tragic and so sad. I also want you to know, I was sharing a dangerous cache here in the United States that my husband and I found and in that particular case, who would be responsible of injuries. 

Yes, I am aware of your original premise. I will also point out that tort law is, in most cases in the United States, based on the individual state law. So that makes fifth

 

7 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

 

Thanks for sharing the link. My thoughts and prayers are with the little girl's surviving family. How tragic and so sad. I also want you to know, I was sharing a dangerous cache here in the United States that my husband and I found and in that particular case, who would be responsible of injuries. 

I am aware of you original premise. I will also point out that in the United States tort law is based on the individual state law. There are lots of similarities, of course, but there are 50 different civl codes to consider. As an example, trespass laws vary.

[+niraD]

7 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

The question is, in the cache that I found...who would be responsible.

Ask an attorney who specializes in injury cases in the local jurisdiction. IANAL, but I do know that even within the US, laws vary from state to state.

[+31BMSG]

17 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

 

Thanks for sharing the link. My thoughts and prayers are with the little girl's surviving family. How tragic and so sad. I also want you to know, I was sharing a dangerous cache here in the United States that my husband and I found and in that particular case, who would be responsible of injuries. 

Since you asked a specific question with little variance allowed in answers I suggest contacting your attorney instead of an internet forum.

[+HunterandSamuel]

1 minute ago, niraD said:

Ask an attorney who specializes in injury cases in the local jurisdiction. IANAL, but I do know that even within the US, laws vary from state to state.

 

And be charged $200? I thought someone here would know. I was also hoping maybe there was an attorney cacher who frequents this forum. lol But my questions have been answered satisfactory so all is well. The topic brought up some important information to learn from and a few of us have already decided to archive a few caches to save someone from being injured. Like I said before...this has been an eye opener. 

[+HunterandSamuel]

8 minutes ago, Michaelcycle said:

I am aware of you original premise. I will also point out that in the United States tort law is based on the individual state law. There are lots of similarities, of course, but there are 50 different civl codes to consider. As an example, trespass laws vary.

 

Ah, I see. Good point. 

[+HunterandSamuel]

37 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

That doesn't mean someone won't try to sue.  A town near us had a burglar fall through the skylight of a house not theirs.  They sued the homeowner because they had a untethered ladder leaning against the house in the back.  Lost of course...

 

I heard of cases like this! A burglar getting injured (shot by a gun) by the homeowner protecting his family and ended up suing the homeowner. I don't know the end of that story but I'm sure the lawsuit was tossed out. Anyone can sue anyone but although you might not be the responsible party and prevail...the cost of hiring a lawyer to represent you, losing work to attend court proceedings, the stress, all can be devastating. 

[+HunterandSamuel]

Thanks everyone, for taking the time to participate in this thread and answering questions and sharing your stories. It is greatly appreciated!

 

 

[+thebruce0]

There are two ethics at play here:

1. If you place a difficult cache and follow all the guidelines even disclaiming its difficulty with warnings, it's not your fault if someone gets hurt.

2. You can choose not to place a difficult cache, if you don't want to bear a personal feeling of guilt if someone gets hurt (at their own fault) because you feel you encouraged them by placing a cache for them to find.

 

#2 is your own choice, keeping in mind it's not your fault if someone attempts a legitimate, allowable, and reasonably disclaimed difficult cache and gets hurt for any reason.

[+HunterandSamuel]

25 minutes ago, 31BMSG said:

 I suggest contacting your attorney instead of an internet forum.

 

I just saw this. I do not have an attorney, never needed one, and have never been sued, knock on wood, although I have taken tenants to small claims court. I'm reading years old posts on cachers being concerned about lawsuits and so far no one has told them to ask an attorney instead of bringing it up here on the forum. Since GS has disclaimers we must all agree to, that opens up a discussion of liability and is a legit concern to bring up here. I'm glad I did, I learned a few important things and hopefully other geocachers just joining the hobby will to. 

[+bflentje]

2 hours ago, Korichnovui said:

This is exactly what is preventing me from making an underwater cache where I live. I love the river where I’m at, and I spend a lot of time on it in the summer, and have often fantasized placing a waterproof cache about 8-10 feet deep somewhere. But I always hesitate. The current is strong, the temperature is somewhat cold even in August (maybe as high as 67 degrees), and people do drown in the river from time to time.

 

People also drown in the bathtub.

[+arisoft]

6 hours ago, HunterandSamuel said:

And be charged $200? I thought someone here would know. I was also hoping maybe there was an attorney cacher who frequents this forum.

 

Most lawyers offer a free consultation. Your problem is that you don't have a case to be solved.

 

Have you thought who is responsible if you hurt yourself when you are driving to a cache site? I can not see any difference if you crash into tree while looking at the map or you fall in a pit for the same reason.

[+Max and 99]

Forum: Liability Concerns

 

Forum: Liability question

 

Forum: Legal Liability

 

Forum: Land Owner Liability

 

Forum: Judging danger means legal liability

 

Forum: Injury to cacher on private property

 

Forum: Getting hurt while attempting a geocache

 

Forum: Caches on private land-is it too big a liability?

 

Forum: Church caches (liability issue)

 

And my favorite:

 

Forum: Groundspeak guidelines/disclaimer change

 

These are a few discussions to browse if you want to read more about the subject. I found all the above on just page one of the search results.

 

 

Edited February 4, 2020 by Max and 99

[+K13]

Who is responsible for beating this dead horse again?

[+niraD]

11 minutes ago, K13 said:

Who is responsible for beating this dead horse again?

12 hours ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Please disregard this if this has already been discussed.

 

[+ecanderson]

3 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

Most lawyers offer a free consultation.

Perhaps in Finland, but not here -- unless it's a good looking contingency case.

[+arisoft]

5 hours ago, ecanderson said:

Perhaps in Finland, but not here -- unless it's a good looking contingency case.

 

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/how-to-prepare-for-a-lawyer-consultation

[+HunterandSamuel]

16 hours ago, bflentje said:

 

People also drown in the bathtub.

 

 

Sure, people can drown in the bathtub but that has nothing to do with what she said. It's every geocachers responsibility, when choosing a spot to hide a cache, that it is safe for others whom you are inviting to find your cache.  Not wanting to hide a cache in waters where the current is strong at times and there have been drownings, I commend her decision. 

 

 

Geocaching HQ and community volunteers are not in any way responsible or liable for caches or their placement. All aspects of your geocache and its placement are your responsibility, and you may be held liable for any resulting consequences. Use of Geocaching HQ services is subject to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. These guidelines are subject to change.

[+HunterandSamuel]

12 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

Most lawyers offer a free consultation. Your problem is that you don't have a case to be solved.

 

 

No, it's not a problem, it's curiosity. It was a question on who would be responsible in the case I mentioned in my first post.  

[+HunterandSamuel]

14 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

These are a few discussions to browse if you want to read more about the subject. I found all the above on just page one of the search results.

 

 

Thanks. I found a few already. One is called Geo-court. A cute name. 

 

 

 

Edited February 4, 2020 by HunterandSamuel
misspelled title of the thread

[+HunterandSamuel]

12 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

Forum: Groundspeak guidelines/disclaimer change

 

Yikes! Thanks for this link. 

 

 

"Now however it appears that cache owners are liable for any incidents/injures that may result from there caches. For normal caches these would be damage to property ect. but with this new guideline this would suggest that if anyone injured themselves on an extreme cache the owner would be liable.

 

For me this is very worrying and I have taken the step of disabling all my extreme and extreme(ish) caches until I can establish the consequences of this change. While all my caches have disclaimers this would appear to counter this, I do attempt to limit risk through use of PMO but this does not entirely stop the issue. I may archive my extremes as a result of this, does anyone have any thoughts on the issue?"

[+HunterandSamuel]

9 hours ago, K13 said:

Who is responsible for beating this dead horse again?

 

Ignore can be your friend, my friend. No one is forcing anyone to read this thread. Skip over it. Also, it has been very productive and valuable information shared, especially for new geocachers who just joined the forum. This is all new to me also. 

[+barefootjeff]

4 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Sure, people can drown in the bathtub but that has nothing to do with what she said. It's every geocachers responsibility, when choosing a spot to hide a cache, that it is safe for others whom you are inviting to find your cache.  Not wanting to hide a cache in waters where the current is strong at times and there have been drownings, I commend her decision.

 

But where do you draw the line? All my caches have the Dangerous Animals attribute because they're in places where potentially deadly snakes can be encountered. Most have the Cliifs/Falling Rocks attribute as they involve scrambling over potentially unstable rocks or close to cliff edges. I have an EarthCache on a coastal rock shelf where someone could easily be swept off by big waves, but is quite safe at low tide with slight seas. Caching is an outdoor activity and there'll always be risks, the key is to manage those risks by providing as much information as possible on the cache page to allow seekers to decide for themselves whether to attempt it and to be prepared for those risks.

 

[+HunterandSamuel]

So, after much thought and thanks for this very important topic I started, we have decided to archive our Arachnid Hotel because, although  traffic wasn't busy when we first hid it in the guardrail and there's lots of room to pull over, even a parking lot next door, a few cachers have mentioned the busy traffic in their logs and to be careful, especially if you bring children. Traffic was mentioned but we received many compliments on the hotel also, so we will search for a safer spot and replant it. A huge thank you to the nice & concerned cachers who had only positive and informative things to say!  It's so refreshing to not let a thread go beyond what it was intended! 

 

 

Edited February 4, 2020 by HunterandSamuel
Spell check misspelled my cache name. lol

[+barefootjeff]

10 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

12 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

Forum: Groundspeak guidelines/disclaimer change

 

Yikes! Thanks for this link. 

 

 

"Now however it appears that cache owners are liable for any incidents/injures that may result from there caches. For normal caches these would be damage to property ect. but with this new guideline this would suggest that if anyone injured themselves on an extreme cache the owner would be liable.

 

For me this is very worrying and I have taken the step of disabling all my extreme and extreme(ish) caches until I can establish the consequences of this change. While all my caches have disclaimers this would appear to counter this, I do attempt to limit risk through use of PMO but this does not entirely stop the issue. I may archive my extremes as a result of this, does anyone have any thoughts on the issue?"

 

You do realise that linked thread was from 2012, don't you?

 

The only one who can apportion liability in a caching accident is a court of law. Anything else is just speculation.

[+HunterandSamuel]

RIP Arachnid Hotel. Until we meet again. 

 

Arachnid Hotel

A cache by HunterSamuel

Hidden : 6/22/2019

 

 

Difficulty:

Terrain:

Size:  (small)

5 Favorites 

 

 

[+HunterandSamuel]

This is so sad but it had to be done. This topic was an eye opener. I feel good about our decision. 

 

 

This cache has been archived.

HunterandSamuel: Traffic has increased on this country road so we decided to find a safer spot in town to hid our cache. Safety for other cachers and non-cachers is # 1 for us.

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

20 hours ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Because GS says cache seekers assume all risk does not mean the landowner and CO can not be sued, only that GS can not be sued. 

 

That's not even close to being true.  Anybody CAN be sued by anybody, at any time.  Just because Groundspeak posts a disclaimer certainly does not prevent them from being sued.

 

It's been a long time since I signed up for a Geocaching account so I don't recall what I agreed to, but a big part of enforceability, when it comes to disclaimers, is active vs. passive acceptance.  That's why you so often see disclaimers that force you to "check a box" (active acceptance) indicating you accept terms and conditions, rather than the passive "use of this website indicates acceptance of our terms".  That almost certainly won't hold up in court.

 

I'm not a lawyer, either, I'm just pointing out the fact that a simple disclaimer on a website is far from an ironclad guarantee that you can't or won't get sued, nor is it a guarantee you'll win if you do.  That's up to the six people in the jury box.

 

Edit: all that said, I'm a firm believer in personal responsibility.  If I get myself in trouble, it's no one fault but my own.

Edited February 4, 2020 by ParrotRobAndCeCe