matlock is this YOU doing this?

[olevetonahill]

Idaho family sues USFS for $1M after tree hit son
Idaho family sues Forest Service for more than $1M after falling tree struck, injured son


http://news.yahoo.com/idaho-family-sues-usfs-1m-180507334.html

[cleller]

Its easy to find all those obvious things someone should have done something about. Like a dead tree in a remote area of a 2.6 million acre forest, but within 8 feet of a fire-ring. (made of rocks, no proof the Forest Service provided this) Obviously, some minimum wage park worker should have spotted that, realized the problem, and reported it to a supervisor.

However, the family coming in to select a campsite for themselves and their children should never be expected to notice something like a large dead tree, and realize it might be best to stay away from it.

It would also probably never register with these people that if the Forest Service cut down every dead tree paid all the bills for people who suffer damages in the park, the parks would cease to exist.

[olevetonahill]

Its easy to find all those obvious things someone should have done something about. Like a dead tree in a remote area of a 2.6 million acre forest, but within 8 feet of a fire-ring. (made of rocks, no proof the Forest Service provided this) Obviously, some minimum wage park worker should have spotted that, realized the problem, and reported it to a supervisor.

However, the family coming in to select a campsite for themselves and their children should never be expected to notice something like a large dead tree, and realize it might be best to stay away from it.

It would also probably never register with these people that if the Forest Service cut down every dead tree paid all the bills for people who suffer damages in the park, the parks would cease to exist.

matlock says" But if the Park service had only had Dead tree insurance, then every body would be happy and the kid could be made WHOLE and the lawyer get his 40%"

[Midtowner]

The $1MM is probably part of the governmental tort claims act and the damages cap there. It's not a totally frivolous case though. When a landowner invites someone onto their land as a member of the public to do business with the landowner, the landowner has a legal duty to make the premises safe, which includes conducting a reasonable inspection of the land to uncover hidden dangers. So the question becomes, what, if any steps did the forest service take to inspect its campsite given it wasn't really a sanctioned/marked campsite, but rather basically just a place with an improvised fire pit left by previous campers and whether the sort of inspection they made was reasonable. This isn't a 100% bad case for the plaintiffs, but there really aren't enough facts here for me to say it's any kind of a slam dunk.

[olevetonahill]

I knew you would find some way to justify this carp.:triumphant:

[Midtowner]

I'm not saying it's a good suit, just that it might be.

[olevetonahill]

I'm not saying it's a good suit, just that it might be.

Im saying its a BS suit, wheres PERSONAL accountability?If you are too ****in stupid to assess the safety of a camp site then maybe you should stay the **** out of the woods.

[KantoSooner]

One would think that some sort of implied consent would come into force when you enter a 'forest', no? I'd also go for some sovereign immunity claim to block 'em. Seems fairly assinine.

[Midtowner]

One would think that some sort of implied consent would come into force when you enter a 'forest', no? I'd also go for some sovereign immunity claim to block 'em. Seems fairly assinine.

It'd be a government tort claims act case. Considering this arose from an incident from 2010, we could just be looking at an attorney who filed the case so he wouldn't be hit with malpractice if he waited past the statute of limitations. No, I don't see any implied consent to having a tree fall on you. The best defense is that it's not reasonable to expect our underfunded parks service to inspect all areas of national forests which MIGHT be used as campgrounds to prevent trees from falling on people. If this was an improved campground or a campground alongside a maintained trail, it'd be a decent case. The article really doesn't give enough facts and I doubt all of the facts are known.

Another thought that I had here is whether the plaintiffs paid to be on the land. That'd make a huge difference in that if they were there to do business with the parks service, paid some sort of fee, etc., they might be invitees, which would require the property owner to inspect and remove even hidden dangers they might find with reasonable inspection. If they're only licensees though, folks who were just there because the landowner allowed 'em to, the plaintiffs would have to exercise reasonable care (i.e., not camping to big 'ol dead trees) and the duty to warn would only occur if the landowner knew about the dangerous condition.

[KantoSooner]

the implied consent I was thinking about would be consenting to normal and reasonably foreseeable dangers of being in a forest. A forest being normally constituted of trees (though some may focus on one to the detriment of being able to clearly discern the other...), and the law of gravity being assumed knowledge of a reasonably normal person, it could be reasonably foreseen that some parts of said trees would, at some point, rejoin the air/dirt interface.

[Midtowner]

the implied consent I was thinking about would be consenting to normal and reasonably foreseeable dangers of being in a forest. A forest being normally constituted of trees (though some may focus on one to the detriment of being able to clearly discern the other...), and the law of gravity being assumed knowledge of a reasonably normal person, it could be reasonably foreseen that some parts of said trees would, at some point, rejoin the air/dirt interface.

Implied consent doesn't really apply in this case. We're more into the duty of a property owner to make the premises safe for licensees or invitees (which these plaintiffs are, I haven't the foggiest). Being present in Wal Mart, for example, doesn't imply consent to the potential that there might be a spill in an aisle which you may slip and fall on even though that's a possibility.

There are some statutory examples of implied consent and some legal ones, e.g., if you play football, you're implying consent to the possibility of being tackled and even injured. You're not implying consent to a vicious and intentional dead ball foul. When you go skiing, there's a statutory implied consent which is laid out by statute in skiing states protecting lift operators from being sued when invitees inevitably come into contact with trees at high speeds.

As to whether I've sued the government for failing to maintain their premises in a safe condition and injuring invitees? Yes, I've done that. Had a client a couple years back who was swinging off of a water slide at a municipally maintained water park. There was a pipe going over the top of the slide which provided the lubricating water to hasten one's trip down the slide, which folks would swing off of had a crack on it which had been temporarily fixed by a hose clamp. Our client was swinging from the slide and his wedding ring was caught by the hose clamp. As he swung off of the slide, his finger was torn nearly off. He was mediflighted to the nearest hospital and then later transferred to a hospital in OKC where the rest of his finger was removed. He was a blue collar guy who worked on oil rigs out at sea. This caused him a hell of a lot of pain and suffering and well more damages than the Governmental Tort Claims Act provided for. The insurance company was quick to right a policy limits check.

[cleller]

Now at all public parks we may have to endure signs saying "Do not camp near dead trees. Notify a ranger if you feel unsafe near a tree".

Plus, you'll have to sign a waiver saying you've been notified of the dangers of dead trees. Maybe a quick video of the difference between live and dead trees....Could probably still get around that for lawsuits in the winter months.

Wonder how many dead trees there are in that 2.6 million acre forest? It all fits with the idea that if something bad happens to you, the govt should be there to help you out, or pay the bill.

[Petro-Sooner]

Please give me more government and paper work so I feel safe.