Reasonable expectation for safety? In the middle of the fucking forest? You've got to be kidding me.
As was said, we're not talking about a campground with electrical sockets and ready-made tents and a general store with pre-cut sticks to roast hot dogs over a permanent stone fire pit with an extinguisher mounted nearby.
He was in the middle of
winderness. The wild. You cannot and should not be held responsible for the mistakes and outright idiocies of the general populace out in the wild. As it is, any state park i've been to with any kind of "wild" has all sorts of pamphlets and literature on "roughing it" and staying safe, all for free. Of course these materials can't cover every possible scenario, but- and here's the most important bit- people need to own up to a certain level of personal responsibility for educating themselves on their surroundings and intended activities, and the possible dangers they contain.
That'd be like suing the government because you went rock climbing and fell and now you're paralyzed from the neck down because the government didn't install padding at the bottom of the mountain wall for you.
Yes, camping can be a dangerous activity. You need to learn and keep your common sense at full blast while out there. This guy was using no common sense.
And i'd also be willing to bet he was drunk at the time.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JinnKai
My argument from a legal standpoint is that there is a reasonable expectation of safety when using government sponsored or funded facilities. While I agree that safety is a personal responsibility, that only goes so far.
|
The middle of a natural forest is not a government facility, nor is it "sponsored" in any way just because it's owned by the government. The only reason it's owned by the government is to keep the boundaries of the land intact to preserve the natural wildlife. It's the middle of a natural forest. We're not talking 50 feet from the visitor's center, this is out IN the forest.
Quote:
|
If you were driving along a federally maintained highway at the posted speed limit and all of a sudden there was an enormous 8 foot pothole that totalled your car, would you not feel that the government had been liable for not properly reinforcing the road? You could have slowed down, but a speed limit sign has been endorsed by traffic engineers as a "safe" speed for that stretch of road.
|
You've got to be kidding, comparing a pothole on a federal highway to a fucking cliff in the middle of a national forest. What do you want the government to do? Fill in all the cliffs? Give me a break.
To begin with- there is no guarantee, whatsoever, made to campers who venture into the woods as to their safety. Nowhere and at no time is such a guarantee made. Anyone ever attempting to make such a guarantee would be a fool, as it would be foolish to assume any sort of expectation of safety would extend into the middle of a forest.
This reminds me of the fact that they're paving sidewalks in DC with rubber. Rubber fucking sidewalks. So when you fall, you don't fall on concrete. The whole country is fucking insane if we're going to start padding the world around us. What does that say about us? It's pathetic.