Advice on liability question

[+ErSamin]

I am looking to place a cache on a trail that is the property of a nearby college. I have a good working relationship with an administrator there, and in our initial talks he seems inclined to accept and approve the cache placement, but he brought up the question of the school's liability.

 

The disclaimer that is linked to each cache page delineates geocaching.com's liability, if I am reading it right. Does it extend to properties where caches are placed? Could someone more familiar with such legal matters enlighten me?

 

"Could be worse...could be raining"

[+briansnat]

I'm no lawyer, so don't take this as the final word, but if they already allow the public to use the trail, then I don't see a cache adding to their liability. There isn't a lot of difference between entering the campus to look for a cache, or to go jogging.

 

A lot of public and some private entities allow geocaching. I'm sure many looked into the liability issue. There have been some times where it was it was such a concern that permission was denied, but those cases seem to be pretty rare.

 

Of course anybody can sue anybody for any reason these days.

 

"Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he'll sit in a boat and drink beer all day" - Dave Barry

[+woodsters]

Pehaps you may want to contact carleenP and ask her, or maybe she will read and answer here herself.

 

Brian

 

s long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

[+Verboten]

Lep is a lawyer, too. I'm sure there are others as well. The problem is that it's real hard for lawyers to give advice without becoming liable.

 

That said, I agree with Brian. If people are allowed there anyway, what difference does it make if they're looking for a cache?

 

Are they going to sue you for not putting up a sign on top of the hill warning about the dangers of gravity?

 

-Vb

 

Edit: Oh yeah, IANAL. More importantly, I am not your lawyer. Heh.

 

[This message was edited by Verboten on July 08, 2003 at 04:43 AM.]

[+briansnat]

quote:

---

Lep is a lawyer, too. I'm sure there are others as well. The problem is that it's real hard for lawyers to give advice without becoming liable.

---

 

Yep, and they're also practicing in PA, and may not be familiar with CA law.

 

Common sense says there would be no additional liability because of the cache (unless maybe someone slices off a finger when closing the ammo box), but since did the law and common sense have anything remotely to do with each other?

 

The administrator is probably best off contacting the school's attorney for the final word.

 

"Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he'll sit in a boat and drink beer all day" - Dave Barry

[+sbell111]

When in doubt, add an additional disclaimer to your cache page. Specifically state that anyone going after this cache agrees to hold you and the school harmless.

 

As always, any such disclaimer will not protect against lawsuits, but will help protect against judgements.

[+Renegade Knight]

I'd offer to post whatever disclaimer the school wants in the cache descripiton.

 

We can't control who visits a cache nor can we control any of the creative ways people manage to get hurt and killed while going bout daily life, let alone leaving the house to find a geocache.

[+woodsters]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Renegade Knight:

 

We can't control who visits a cache nor can we control any of the creative ways people manage to get hurt and killed while going bout daily life, let alone leaving the house to find a geocache.

---

 

Amen to that.

 

I can understand the schools concern though. It may be tough to convince them. Especially depending on how serious they take or look at the sport. Some will probably feel that there may be a chance of liability and if they feel they need to question an attorney. Then they will probably question the fact whether or not it is worth it. I'm sure some will take the easy way out and say no, but others might not mind. AS long as they don't think about it too hard...lol

 

But hwith your relationship, it may not be so hard. Just tell him like the others said that you will place a note on the cache page in addition to the disclaimer already there.

 

Brian

 

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

[+Searching_ut]

It's a sad reflection of the way things are in current American society. Many landowners I know now post, and fence their lands simply because they fear liability issues. At one time, they used to allow the public on their land for hiking, hunting, or any other reason provided they weren’t tearing the place up.

 

As for common sense, and disclaimers, just look at some of the recent lawsuits against national parks, or for that matter McDonalds. The coffee is to hot, the burgers make me fat etc. Disclaimers don’t necessarily help, common sense often doesn’t get involved at all, and even if you are right and win in court, it can cost considerable money. Can we really blame people for not wanting to assume a very real risk. While I wouldn’t think geocaching is much of an increased risk, I could see how landowners would fear it simply because they didn’t have complete control of every aspect of it. Just the fact that people might leave the trails, or sidewalks probably increases the landowners exposure.

 

Unless we all do something to take back the country from the out of control legal system, I would expect to see things like geocaching becoming banned just about everywhere. Simply the fact that the landowners often have money means allowing anything to take place on their land puts them at risk.

[+carleenp]

If the school is concerned about liability, offer to put a disclaimer on the cache page. I won't express an opinion about one being binding, it would depend on too many different factors. In general, I doubt that someone is likely to get hurt by the cache, and if they did, a general negligence lawsuit would not likely succeed.

 

[+ErSamin]

Just giving it a bump for another chance of constructive answers (which, by the way, is what I have gotten so far...thanks!)

 

"Could be worse...could be raining"

[+sbell111]

I think you already have the best solution, as long as the school accepts it.

[+Umbaba]

I think our legal system works pretty well, actually. The case with the 'too hot' coffee was pretty egregious on McDonald's part. They had been warned time and time again about the temperature of the coffee. The woman who was scalded received **3rd Degree** burns on her genital and buttock areas. Sure, she was at fault for putting the coffee between her legs in the drive through, but you got to admit that you've done that on occasion. And to get 3rd degree burns on your privvies for that??

 

The punitive damages McDonald's received was seemingly large but only amounted to the PROFIT from coffee sales for one day.

 

Originally posted by Searching_ut:

...

 

As for common sense, and disclaimers, just look at some of the recent lawsuits against national parks, or for that matter McDonalds. The coffee is to hot, the burgers make me fat etc.

[+Bloencustoms]

I think that concern over litigation sucks the enjoyment out of a lot of activities. Some people just need to accept responsibility for their actions, and quit demanding other people pay them for their own carelessness.

 

"Chock full of essential vitamins and waypoints"

[+Searching_ut]

quote:

---

Umbaba said:

 

I think our legal system works pretty well, actually. The case with the 'too hot' coffee was pretty egregious on McDonald's part. They had been warned time and time again about the temperature of the coffee. The woman who was scalded received **3rd Degree** burns on her genital and buttock areas. Sure, she was at fault for putting the coffee between her legs in the drive through, but you got to admit that you've done that on occasion. And to get 3rd degree burns on your privvies for that??

---

 

That response is exactly my point, and the reason so many people fear litigation. When I had the responsibilities of safety officer in the military, looking at that case from a risk analysis aspect was something I had to do during some training. The data was so misrepresented and blown out of proportion as to be criminal in my opinion. The number of injuries incurred by those subjected to McDonalds coffee, vs the exposure due to sheer numbers of people consuming this coffee was so absolutely small as to be laughable. Compare it to say the number of people who died in vehicle crashes while on the way to get the coffee, or that choked on food while dining there, the numbers injured by the coffee are shall we say insignificant. When you get large sample sizes, you get large numbers of injuries from virtually everything people do. The relationship of the jury award to the coffee sales should give you an idea of how much of the coffee was consumed in a single day. As for the rest of the case, I’ll stay out of the techniques of twisting and manipulating the data and public opinion.

 

If we apply the same standard the jury applied in that case to say Federal lands in Utah, the government is in big trouble. In the last 4 months, there have been two people seriously hurt, and another killed by shifting rocks on federal lands that I know of. The authorities have been on notice of this hazard for years, yet they still allow people into the national forests and recreation areas. The number of people injured, vs those exposed is quite high when compared to the numbers injured when consuming egregiously hot coffee. Should the government be sued? Not only does this big (Think big bankroll) organization know the risks involved should they allow the public to venture onto the land, they also know the severity of any possible injuries is also potentially greater. I suppose the fine should be a weeks worth of the fees the fed collects for public land access.

 

What should we tell those who fear liability when allowing geocachers on their land. If we’re honest, I suppose we should tell them that geocachers represent a large cross section of American society, and as such, allowing us access most likely does expose them to litigation risks. Only they can determine if they have big enough shoulders to carry that risk.