Injury to cacher on private property

[+eluga]

We have asked our church about hiding several caches on church property. The issue that they seem most concerned about is liability should someone gets hurt while looking for the cache and sues the church. While the issue of negligence on either party is not for debate because that would be settled in court. Is there anything in Geocaching that would hold property owners, that have granted permission, not liable from such legal action? Obviously, if the property owner or the cache owner places a cache in a dangerous location, that would not resolve the property owner from damages. Anybody have any thoughts on the matter. Thanks

[+StarBrand]

We have asked our church about hiding several caches on church property. The issue that they seem most concerned about is liability should someone gets hurt while looking for the cache and sues the church. While the issue of negligence on either party is not for debate because that would be settled in court. Is there anything in Geocaching that would hold property owners, that have granted permission, not liable from such legal action? Obviously, if the property owner or the cache owner places a cache in a dangerous location, that would not resolve the property owner from damages. Anybody have any thoughts on the matter. Thanks

Much discussed over the year's. Although generally agreed that simply granting access for an outdoor activity should not greatly increase liability exposure - the simple fact remains that anybody can and will file lawsuits over any perceived issue that affects them no matter what else is in place. However, they already generally grant access to the church grounds for members of the public that want to attend church or visit the staff/pastor so the risk shouldn't be any different. Just me maybe.....

[+Off Grid]

You have permission that's always good. But I would just use experience from other caches did you go to tough ones easy ones to determine the rating and write on the cache page please b aware and safe most geo cachers read before heading out.

[+cerberus1]

Nope.

The "waivers" cover Groundspeak's can and no one else.

You say the issue of negligence isn't for debate, yet you ask for a way to negate it.

Sorry , not happening.

The property owner is usually liable, unless someone doesn't follow their land use policies.

- With a decent attorney, they're still liable.

You could argue that the church allows the public in now (mass, Sunday School, Bingo...), but since they're already questioning it, it'll probably fall on deaf ears.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

Part of the problem that exists with this, is the liability is a different standard for a parishioner as opposed to somebody who is not using the church property for church business.

 

As sad as it may seem, due to the ever-standing possibility of civil liability, I must agree with the church's decision. It's their property and they are liable for what happens thereon, either in part or in totality.

[GOF and Bacall]

I'm no lawyer but you may want to check in to the possibility of any recreational use statutes in your area. These are laws designed to protect landowners from liability issues when allowing recreational use of their land. It helps open private lands for public use. Such laws very widely and your mileage may very.

[+eluga]

I appreciate all the quick and helpful comments and advice. I checked out the Texas Recreational Use Statutes and I believe that is exactly what I need to bring to the attention of the church if they have any reservations. I feel a lot more confident about this now. Thanks to all.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

Yep, we got one of those rec use statues here too. They're sweet!

[+ngrrfan]

I appreciate all the quick and helpful comments and advice. I checked out the Texas Recreational Use Statutes and I believe that is exactly what I need to bring to the attention of the church if they have any reservations. I feel a lot more confident about this now. Thanks to all.

It is YOUR church..... You asked for permission and they have some reservations about it. Do you really want to push the issue? Basically they are telling you "No" but they are trying to be nice. Move on and forget it.

[AZcachemeister]

In the past, I would expect a Geocacher to take responsibility for anything that might happen while they were looking for a cache.

 

These days, Geocaching is accessible to (and done by) people who might not be adverse to a lawsuit for injuries on private property...even if it is from their own stupidity.

 

Sadly, your church is right to be cautious.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

I'm no lawyer but you may want to check in to the possibility of any recreational use statutes in your area. These are laws designed to protect landowners from liability issues when allowing recreational use of their land. It helps open private lands for public use. Such laws very widely and your mileage may very.

 

In RI:

 

§32-6-3 Liability of landowner. Except as specifically recognized by or provided in § 32-6-5, an owner of land who either directly or indirectly invites or permits without charge any person to use that property for recreational purposes does not thereby:

 

(1) Extend any assurance that the premises are safe for any purpose;

 

(2) Confer upon that person the legal status of an invitee or licensee to whom a duty of care is owed; nor

 

(3) Assume responsibility for or incur liability for any injury to any person or property caused by an act of omission of that person.

 

§32-6-5 Limitation on chapter.

 

(a) Nothing in this chapter limits in any way any liability which, but for this chapter, otherwise exists:

 

(1) For the willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity after discovering the user's peril; or

 

(2) For any injury suffered in any case where the owner of land charges the person or persons who enter or go on the land for the recreational use thereof, except that in the case of land leased to the state or a subdivision thereof, any consideration received by the owner for that lease shall not be deemed a "charge" within the meaning of this section.

 

( When the coastal resources management council designates a right-of-way as part of its designation process as specified in § 46-23-6(5), or when the coastal resources management council stipulates public access as a condition of granting a permit, the landowner automatically will have "limited liability" as defined in this chapter, except as specifically recognized by or provided in this section.

[+hzoi]

Even if your state doesn't have a recreational use statute, there's not much liability assumed for geocachers or anyone else with permission to enter property.

 

There are three classes of people when it comes to liability of a property owner under American tort law: trespassers, licensees, and invitees.

 

Anyone entering property with permission (so, not a trespasser), but not actually seeking to do business there (so, not an invitee), is a licensee. Basically the duty a property owner owes to a licensee is to warn of any hidden danger that is known to the owner (pit mine, guard dog, what have you). They should be doing that already for the churchgoers, there should be no more risk for geocachers than any typical churchgoer.

[+DanOCan]

In the end, it doesn't matter if you're right or you're wrong, fighting a lawsuit becomes very expensive very fast.

[Luckless]

I've seen people post disclaimers on their cache webpage stating that anyone who chooses to look for that cache agrees to hold the property owner blameless. They look for the cache at their own risk.

[+Shop99er]

Won't make a bit of difference if someone decides to sue.

 

If the property owner says no, then that's it.

[Luckless]

Seems to me that it might give you a bit of an edge if you had something like a disclaimer on your page should someone decide to sue. At least more than if you didn't.

(As an aside I believe if we had universal health care we'd see a reduction in lawsuits for property injury, at least the medical aspects of them.)

[+ngrrfan]

Seems to me that it might give you a bit of an edge if you had something like a disclaimer on your page should someone decide to sue. At least more than if you didn't.

Putting a disclaimer on the page is an admission that there is some sort of dangerous condition.

[Luckless]

Seems to me that it might give you a bit of an edge if you had something like a disclaimer on your page should someone decide to sue. At least more than if you didn't.

Putting a disclaimer on the page is an admission that there is some sort of dangerous condition.

 

How do you figure that?

[+DanOCan]

Seems to me that it might give you a bit of an edge if you had something like a disclaimer on your page should someone decide to sue. At least more than if you didn't.

Putting a disclaimer on the page is an admission that there is some sort of dangerous condition.

I've heard the same thing about "Beware of Dog" signs...the act of posting such a sign indicates you are aware that your dog is a biter or vicious or such^*.

 

^*I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.

[+CanadianRockies]

Seems to me that it might give you a bit of an edge if you had something like a disclaimer on your page should someone decide to sue. At least more than if you didn't.

Putting a disclaimer on the page is an admission that there is some sort of dangerous condition.

I've heard the same thing about "Beware of Dog" signs...the act of posting such a sign indicates you are aware that your dog is a biter or vicious or such^*.

 

^*I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.

The general consensus over at Snopes is that this is a myth.

 

When an insurance company asks you to display a Beware of Dog sign in a prominent place, that's usually a good sign that it reduces legal liability rather than increases it.

 

Indeed, multiple courts in the U.S. have ruled that people who see Beware of Dog signs (and/or hear verbal warnings) assume the risk of injury if they opt to ignore those warnings. See Benton v. Aquarium, Inc., Duplechain v. Thibodeaux, Swerdfeger v. Krueger, Dotson v. Continental Insurance Company, and Parks v. Paola.

 

I think I'll continue to include the "Dangerous" attributes (when appropriate) on my cache pages to warn geocachers.

Edited March 27, 2013 by CanadianRockies

[+wmpastor]

"

I appreciate all the quick and helpful comments and advice. I checked out the Texas Recreational Use Statutes and I believe that is exactly what I need to bring to the attention of the church if they have any reservations. I feel a lot more confident about this now. Thanks to all.

It is YOUR church..... You asked for permission and they have some reservations about it. Do you really want to push the issue? Basically they are telling you "No" but they are trying to be nice. Move on and forget it.

He's trying to convert church members into cachers. It's his mission. In the forum, he's preaching to the choir. At church, he's a missionary for Groundspeak.

 

All clear now?!

[+hzoi]

Seems to me that it might give you a bit of an edge if you had something like a disclaimer on your page should someone decide to sue. At least more than if you didn't.

Putting a disclaimer on the page is an admission that there is some sort of dangerous condition.

I've heard the same thing about "Beware of Dog" signs...the act of posting such a sign indicates you are aware that your dog is a biter or vicious or such^*.

 

^*I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.

The general consensus over at Snopes is that this is a myth.

 

When an insurance company asks you to display a Beware of Dog sign in a prominent place, that's usually a good sign that it reduces legal liability rather than increases it.

 

Indeed, multiple courts in the U.S. have ruled that people who see Beware of Dog signs (and/or hear verbal warnings) assume the risk of injury if they opt to ignore those warnings. See Benton v. Aquarium, Inc., Duplechain v. Thibodeaux, Swerdfeger v. Krueger, Dotson v. Continental Insurance Company, and Parks v. Paola.

 

I think I'll continue to include the "Dangerous" attributes (when appropriate) on my cache pages to warn geocachers.

 

Concur.

 

As I wrote above, landowners have a duty to warn licensees of hidden dangers, such as guard dogs, pits, electric fences, etc. Signs are a convenient way to do so and do not increase liability.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

^*I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.

But I did stay at Holiday Inn Express last night....

[+hzoi]

^*I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.

But I did stay at Holiday Inn Express last night....

Well, shoot. No one said that I had to play one on TV to count.