Forum Index > Trail Talk > Couple Sues USFS For $1 Million After Tree Falls On Son
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
Redwic
Unlisted Free Agent



Joined: 23 Feb 2009
Posts: 3292 | TRs | Pics
Location: Going to the Prom(inence)
Redwic
Unlisted Free Agent
PostThu Apr 11, 2013 7:40 am 
http://news.yahoo.com/idaho-family-sues-usfs-1m-180507334.html Seriously? The son was not killed, and they should be thankful for that rather than suing the USFS.

60 pounds lighter but not 60 points brighter.
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Doppelganger





Doppelganger
PostThu Apr 11, 2013 8:15 am 

Back to top Reply to topic
ranger rock
One of the boys



Joined: 14 Dec 2011
Posts: 2550 | TRs | Pics
ranger rock
One of the boys
PostThu Apr 11, 2013 8:48 am 
banghead.gif

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
The Angry Hiker
SAR Blacklistee



Joined: 13 Jun 2008
Posts: 2890 | TRs | Pics
Location: Kentwila
The Angry Hiker
SAR Blacklistee
PostThu Apr 11, 2013 9:11 am 
Perhaps the time has come for warnings signs on trees. All of them.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Lono
Member
Member


Joined: 19 May 2006
Posts: 930 | TRs | Pics
Lono
Member
PostThu Apr 11, 2013 10:00 am 
Dead tree in a USFS *maintained* campsite = potential liability for not removing it. "it had been dead for years" = possible neglect and failure to remove the tree, resulting in injury. Doesn't matter if there is no money for tree removal or even witting maintenance programs with safety of campers as a concern - there generally are, question is can FS districts adequately fund them on budgetary chicken droppings. I suspect there are thousands of dead trees out there ready to blow over and invoke lawsuits from the unlucky. If these folks had camped in my front yard and been killed by a Doug Fir on my property with known root rot that I had failed to remove, I'd expect a lawsuit as well. Knowledge of a hazard implies an obligation to remove or mitigate it, in the case of trees we cut them down. Only question is whether the allegations are true, and even if so, can the federal government be held liable for their acts or inactions.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
wolffie
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Jul 2008
Posts: 2693 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
wolffie
Member
PostThu Apr 11, 2013 10:11 am 
Lock up all those dead trees. We're too soft on crime. And get all those loose rocks off the trails, too. Somebody might get hurt.
Lono wrote:
Knowledge of a hazard implies an obligation to remove or mitigate it
So if I get hit by a meteorite, I can sue NASA for not putting up a net?

Some people have better things to do with their lives than walking the dog. Some don't.
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
grannyhiker
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 3516 | TRs | Pics
Location: Gateway to the Columbia Gorge
grannyhiker
Member
PostThu Apr 11, 2013 10:14 am 
This suit will undoubtedly lead to campground closures where, for budgetary or other reasons, they can't do hazard mitigation. We've already seen a favorite Oregon state park campground (Oswald West) closed, although that was more because the alternative was to cut down most of the beautiful Sitka Spruce trees there. On the other hand, shouldn't campers exercise some due diligence by not camping under dead trees?

May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view.--E.Abbey
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Hulksmash
Cleaning up.



Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Posts: 7113 | TRs | Pics
Location: Arlington
Hulksmash
Cleaning up.
PostThu Apr 11, 2013 10:16 am 
shakehead.gif Here's how I chose a camp site. 1. Are there any widow makers. Like are there any obvious dead trees/dead limbs. 2. Is thee leftover food/wrappers scattered about if so the camp site is now a critter buffet now. 3. Does the site have reasonable access to water. 4. Is there reasonable access to answer mother nature in the middle of the night. 5. Is it level. 6. does it conform to #1 7. does it conform to #6 Seriously don't camp near dead trees.

"Bears couldn't care less about us....we smell bad and don't taste too good. Bugs on the other hand see us as vending machines." - WetDog Albuterol! it's the 11th essential
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Daryl
Big Shot Economist



Joined: 05 Dec 2008
Posts: 1817 | TRs | Pics
Daryl
Big Shot Economist
PostThu Apr 11, 2013 10:24 am 
So the forest service is supposed to maintain campsites created by users outside of campgrounds? Hope this gets thrown out.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Stefan
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 5082 | TRs | Pics
Stefan
Member
PostThu Apr 11, 2013 10:40 am 
I wonder if the father was cutting the tree with an axe and the tree fell on his son.

Art is an adventure.
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Cyclopath
Faster than light



Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 7694 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
Cyclopath
Faster than light
PostThu Apr 11, 2013 10:46 am 
To some extent, I think you're accepting a level of risk when you enter the backcountry, and a little bit more when you stay overnight. If nature was a completely sanitized place, life would be a lot more disappointing.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
ranger rock
One of the boys



Joined: 14 Dec 2011
Posts: 2550 | TRs | Pics
ranger rock
One of the boys
PostThu Apr 11, 2013 10:48 am 
It sounds like they were in a dispersed camping area. This could mean the end of dispersed camping.. but I bet it gets thrown out.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnManic
Member
Member


Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 502 | TRs | Pics
Location: Kirkland WA
MtnManic
Member
PostThu Apr 11, 2013 11:01 am 
A campground on Swauk Pass was closed a few years back because of the danger of widow-makers - an official one, that is, not dispersed.

Backpacking: limited to one pack at a time. Cameras: limited to as many as I can carry.
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9495 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostThu Apr 11, 2013 12:29 pm 
I wonder if the parents are the actual instigators of the lawsuit -- or if they have been compelled to sue by their medical insurance carrier...

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Slugman
It’s a Slugfest!



Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Posts: 16874 | TRs | Pics
Slugman
It’s a Slugfest!
PostThu Apr 11, 2013 3:18 pm 
It's not going to be the end of anything, no need to panic. It will likely be a lost case as an act of God, due to the windstorm, or be an assumed risk. Just a couple of weeks ago I had to find an alternate tent site other than my first choice due to widow makers dangling above.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Trail Talk > Couple Sues USFS For $1 Million After Tree Falls On Son
  Happy Birthday speyguy, Bandanabraids!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum