-
Well, if a simple "Terms of Use" works for Groundspeak, then I would
recommend a similar text be part of the cache description. However,
even though I am not a lawyer, I think that a TOU will still not work
in cases of negligence. Just like when you park your car, you normally
get a receipt that states that "no bailment is created", but in truth
there is. They just print that on the ticket to discourage you from
doing anything if something did happen. The words mean nothing even
though they are printed and consent is implied when you accept the
receipt. Putting a disclaimer in your web text certainly would do at
least as much as the TOU for Groudspeak I would think.
Glenn wrote:
-
It is thought that the cache seeker assumes all risk for seeking a
cache. I believe that it is fairly clear in the Terms of Use (TOU) of
the Groundspeak site.
I believe that it has been argued that while it is assumed the seeker
assumes liability, others have argued that since the seeker was being
"invited" to this special spot, the one doing the inviting (the cache
hider) would also be liable. I think that would have to be determined
on a case by case basis. The parks fear liability since someone might
get hurt in their park but I believe that in most cases the parks would
only be liable if they were negligent in their duties. Defective
equipment might fall in that category.
On at least one occasion (back in the old days) a cache "approver" was
being held responsible for an injury at a cache at an event. Since the
event was "approved" and the cache was "approved" the approver should
be held liable for approving of such things. There was quite the
stink, I don't know who finally got sued for the problems but it is
still a concern. Groundspeak no longer "approves" of anything. We
"Review" caches to see if they meet a few guidelines, then we "List"
the caches on the groundspeak "Listing site". We no longer "approve"
caches. It is still a worry tho.
I DO know what has held up in court. Cache placers ARE liable if the
cache causes the authorities to be called out. Cache hiders HAVE been
arrested, fined and could face jail time if the cache starts a "public
scene". Cache seekers could be (and have been) arrested for doing the
same. Getting the bomb squad out is not good and they will want to
speak with the cache owner. I have had 3 caches confiscated. Two of
them caused a bit of a stink. I consider myself lucky that no one ever
called me about either "incident". Remember back last year when an
advertising stunt had these blinking light things on public structures
in the northeast? (New Your I think). Those guys got in a heap of
trouble.
A couple months ago a cacher placed a cache near an airport. It was not
even listed yet, the reviewer had not even seen the cache page yet.
Still, somehow the FBI was called when someone saw the cache placer
leaving the area. The cache placer got in a bit of trouble and pretty
soon the FBI was calling the Kansas reviewer about a cache that was not
listed and we didn't even know about. He thought he was very close to
getting into a heap of trouble and he had NO involvement.
If someone were very determined, they could try to argue that since the
cache placer IS liable for placement issues they should also be liable
for injury issues. I don't think it will stand up but again it would
be a cache by case thing.
Even if the cache seeker looses the case, the cache hider will have
spent a bunch of money defending themselves.
The cache seeker CHOOSES to seek the cache. They choose the path they
take. They (should be) the ones liable for their actions.
The groundspeak attorneys say that everyone is on solid ground putting
the liability on the seeker. There are always attorneys that are
smarter and trickier that might try to push the issue tho.
glenn
Skyler Dragon wrote:
-
I stumbled on an interesting discussion about
liability in the groundspeak forums. (thread#168699) This discussion
was in the general geocaching forums
and not in the Moga or SLAGA sections.
I posted to the MoGA forum a comment about the
discussion. I thought I'd post here too since this
seems more active.
General discussion in the thread suggests that cache
owners are liable for injuries that occur to people
seeking their caches. The general discussion also
states that the liability clause only protects
groundspeak from suit if something happens.
I had a few questions about this since I'm mostly
ignorant about law.
1. Are cache placers liable if someone gets hurt
seeking a cache?
2. Do we have any SLAGA members knowledgable on legal
matters?
3. Has there been any interest in SLAGA to invite
historians, lawyers or politicians for training/or
workshops and classes? I know I'd like to hear from a
lawyer about this and I love attending workshops about
local history and such.
PLEASE NOTE: I am not trying to start trouble, I am
just curious. I have not been injured seeking a
cache. I just saw the discussion and thought it would
be interesting to discuss.
****************************************
For List Info or To make _ANY_ changes, including unsubscribing from
this
list, click -----> http://www.freelists.org/list/geocaching Missouri
Caches Scheduled to be Archived http://tinyurl.com/87cqw
****************************************
For List Info or To make _ANY_ changes, including unsubscribing from this
list, click -----> http://www.freelists.org/list/geocaching
Missouri Caches Scheduled to be Archived http://tinyurl.com/87cqw
|