lindalove

Man sues U.S. Government after falling off cliff while taking a leak.

R.I.P. Personal Responsibility and Common Sense.

I hope this lawsuit gets dismissed and the guy has to pay restitution for wasting everyone's time.

The system needs to be changed so that if you file a lawsuit and lose, you have to pay the damages. I think that would eliminate a lot of frivulous lawsuits.

Brewmaniac

Linda, I couldn't agree with you more!

__________________
"That's a joke... I say, that's a joke, son"

genuinegirly

you have to realize something here though...
he probably got hurt pretty severely.
he probably had to get some sort of medical attention, for which he cannot now pay.

suing the US government isn't going to go anywhere (rarely does).

Not to threadjack, but would a perfectly functional national healthcare system perhaps diminish these frivelous lawsuits? Can't know without doing a study on the motivations behind such cases. I'd still be interested in seeing if that's all there is to it.

__________________
"Sometimes I have to remember that things are brought to me for a reason, either for my own lessons or for the benefit of others." Cynthetiq

"violence is no more or less real than non-violence." roachboy

maleficent

I might agree to pay for medical expenses... I don't agree with paying for "mental anguish"... a monetary value can't be placed on pain and suffering for ones own carelessness.

years ago, I was stopped at a red light during a snow storm, and some idiot behind me clearly felt that red lights in snow were optional and I was invisible... His big ass car hit my little ass car and did all sorts of damage... to me and my car... several weeks later, he decides to sue me (there was no damage to his car) for pain and suffering, mental anguish and my personal favorite "loss of services of his wife" -- poor dude couldn't get it up he was so distraught that he was a bad driver.... (meanwhile I was in physical therapy for about 6 weeks with the injury that I got... but never contemplated suing)

Dude tried to sue the wrong person... half my father's law firm wanted to represent me just becuase it was gonna be fun... case got dismissed pretty quickly.

__________________

Jinn

Maybe I think too much like a lawyer, but if it's a designated camping area cleared and sectioned off by the government, a reasonable assumption could be made about its safety. If he were just randomly camping in the woods, it would be an entirely different thing.

If you were in a campground with designated firepits, designated places for your tents, and other areas were roped or otherwise blocked off, would you not have a reasonable assumption that a 20 foot cliff would also be? If so, then the government could have some culpability in his near Darwin Award performance.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Dilbert1234567

Idiots piss me off, if you’re going to pee in the dark woods, bring a flash light.

The point of going into the wild is to be in the untouched wild, I don’t want guard rails, warning signs, ect in my campsite. I just want the wild. Please don’t place packing peanuts and bubble rap on my trees.


i'd love to have been at that hearing.

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

Jinn

I agree. I refuse to camp at a "site" where you BUY wood and there are stores to sell smore material. I like "roughin" it -- sleeping bag, maybe a tent. But for the people who camp at "campsites" that are guarded off, don't you think they have a reasonable expectation of safety?

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

krwlz

My opinion there is that safety is a PERSONAL responsibility. Accidents do happen, but for the most part... Dont want to get hurt? Use your fucking head!

At the root of this (and a much more serious problem) is that not only do people not want to be responsible for their actions, they also don't want to think.

Why else would you sue someone for essentially not thinking for you?

I wish society would realize that not thinking for yourself, and giving that responsibility to the government is only going to destroy the chances for self thought and freedom for generations to come...

NoSoup

I dunno - perhaps I feel for the guy because I nearly did the same thing, but it would really depend on the specific circumstances. I went camping relatively near where I live at a campground that is basically set up on some cliffs overlooking Lake Michigan.

It seemed a fine campsite and we were all having a good time, but late that night I started to wander off to take a leak and nearly fell to my death.

Granted, it was dark - but I had a flashlight. Probably less than 10 feet from the edge of our campsite was a 40-50 foot drop straight down - with only a 3 foot opening on top. I never saw it - well, not until I stuck my leg through it, anyway...

In a situation like that, had I fallen and died, I would be absolutely fine with my family suing the park - and I don't like frivolous lawsuits any more than most other people.

Remember, often times people hear about a situation and automatically assume that it is frivolous lawsuit. For instance: The lady who spilled McDonald's coffee on her lap. At least in my opinion, it wasn't frivolous - the coffee was far hotter than it ever should have been, and caused extensive damage to her - if I remember correctly, multiple surgeries, skin grafts, permanent nerve damage, and of course scarring were just the tip of the iceberg.

Initially, it sounds ridiculous, but I try to withold judgement until I have the full story...

__________________
I have an aura of reliability and good judgement.

Just in case you were wondering...

Dilbert1234567

There are to many variables to have a reasonable expectation of safety, wild animals, weather, other idiots, just to many things for the government to keep track of, if you want a real safe place to go camping, go to a state park near a. if this idiot succeeds with his law suit, I see the beginning of the end of state run parks, more and more people are going to sue over stupid things like this, and eventually it will cost to much to keep the park open to visitors, or you will have to sign a waver just to enter the park.

‘Warning, Don’t Be An Idiot!’

…I bet you $10 he was drunk at the time.

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

krwlz

Have you ever spilled fresh coffe in your lap in a car, where you can't immediately do something about it? Me neither, but I've done it places where I could at least lift the clothes off my skin. Still got burns. With age, the damage only increases. Still frivolous in my opinion, unless the person serving her spilled it on her.

maleficent

Not to derail this thread but that thread was frivolous - yes the coffee was served too hot (and that case ruined it for coffee drinkers who like super hot coffee) but if I remember correctly she put the coffee cup between her legs and drove off.. THAT IS STUPID... a person has a reasonable expectation of safetly, but doesn't mean they can be stupid either...

__________________

NoSoup

Looks like we may have to agree to disagree here Mal

It is served too hot, but since the lawsuit, McDonald's hasn't changed the temperature that they serve it at - still typically 180-190 Degrees when served.

Although I couldn't say with absolute certainty, I believe that she spilled it when she was trying to put cream and sugar in it.

I agree with you that a person has a reasonable expectation of safety, but I don't think that it was stupid of her to spill coffee on herself. It was an accident. Unfortunately, because McDonald's coffee is so hot, it causes third degree burns in less than three seconds - the average coffee (around 160 Degrees) would take nearly 20 seconds.

Initially, she asked for $800.00 dollars to cover some of the medical bills, but McDonald's refused. She had never sued anyone before - and the jury came up with the 2.7 million dollar figure (about 2 days' of coffee sales nationwide) - but the amount was later reduced to $480,000 - then it was reduced again, rumored to less than half of that amount.

Had this been the first time it had ever happened, I would be more understanding, but McDonalds had settled over 700 times outside of court regarding coffee burns - sometimes over $500,000.

Sorry for the threadjack

__________________
I have an aura of reliability and good judgement.

Just in case you were wondering...

maleficent

mcfacts about the lawsuit

more detail
OK she was putting cream and sugar in... (to kill the taste of mcdonalds coffee no douby) but to get those burns,s he had to have the coffee balanced between her knees... STUPID... People SHOULD be expected to have a reasonable right to keep themselves safe... you don't jump into a hot bathtub without testng the water... if you burn yourself do you blame the water company?

__________________

snowy

The guy was in the Mt. Hood National Forest. We're not talking about a campground that sells wood and smores. We're talking about "roughing it" in many locations--especially if he wasn't at a developed campsite, and there are lots of hiking trails all through there, so the guy could have been anywhere.

Truthfully, if the guy was as enthusiastic about the outdoors as he says he is--you think he would have had a better grip on his surroundings before bedding down for the night and would have noticed there was a cliff 30 ft. from where he was camping.

The government shouldn't have to pay out for people's stupidity.

__________________
If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Jinn

It's interesting that the person has to be an idiot in every sentence he's mentioned. I'm sure you've never tripped and fallen. But I would be hasty to call YOU an idiot. [EDIT: Not you snowy, or mal.. you posted while I was typing ]

You're preaching to the choir. I think a lack of personal responsibility is the largest problem today. Parents and teachers blaming music and video games for violent children. Violent children blaming bad parenting and horrible schools. Parents suing a child's school because their child did something against the rules.

However, this is one of the cases where you really can't tell. The longest "article" I can even find on this "news" is a few paragraphs. Was this an official campsite? Was he just out in the woods? Why has he filed against the US Government and not the Oregon State Government? Or the park? Why does he feel that they are responsible? There's a lot of unanswered questions.

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.

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 expect that the forces under the governments control (not acts of God, emergenices, etc) will be performed correctly and safely, and therefore you a reasonable expectation of safety. If a national disaster were to occur and it was demonstrable that despite the government's best efforts the event was unpreventable, then they would not be liable.

Similarly, if the government (Probably the US Government, if it's a National Park) has provided a "safe" campsite with "safe" fire pits and designated "safe" tent placement areas, one could strongly argue that a reasonable person assumes that other assurances have been made to protect your safety (like warnings of some sort regarding a cliff).

I'm only presenting what I believe the lawyer will also present, and I do not feel that it is frivolous.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

analog

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.

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.

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.

Jinn

Your whole post is based on However, unless you read something I did not, you don't know that this wasn't EXACTLY where he was.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

analog

I'm fairly certain that "in the Mt. Hood National Forest" means in the Mt. Hood National Forest. If it was in the campground area, that would certainly have been mentioned, and they don't refer to the park areas as the forest. The state park is called the state park, and when you're out in the forest, it's referred to as the forest you're in, not the park that leads to it. That's been my experience in every state park i've been to, probably a dozen or so in 3 states.

snowy

Being that you're not from the Western United States, I am going to assume you don't see a lot of national forests (given that Florida has 1 to our 14) and don't know how they're managed or what they can feature. They are managed by the USDA Forest Service. Most national forests are serviced by lots of forest roads, all numbered. Some forests are serviced by larger roads, including highways. The Mount Hood National Forest has a national highway and several state highways running through it, and is bounded on its northernmost side by I-84.

Within the Mount Hood National Forest there are lots of state parks, county parks, and developed campgrounds, as well as lots of hiking trails. There are certainly areas of the Mount Hood National Forest that could be as developed as some of our state parks but still referred to as the national forest. They do have several Forest Service managed developed campsites that would compare to a state park's facilities.

This is what puzzles me about the entire thing--even in the local news they have not mentioned specifically where in the forest the gentleman was at the time of the accident--what campground, what ranger area, off of what trail. In contrast to the developed areas, there are five areas of wilderness within the Mount Hood National Forest. If he had been in one of those areas, wouldn't they have mentioned that detail? Personally I was always taught in journalism that that was a very basic question to answer, and I think giving the answer "Mount Hood National Forest" is a very very bad one. It's a cop-out. I want to know more, especially as someone familiar with that area.

__________________
If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Elphaba

I feel the same way, Snowy. Hours ago I tried a google of the area and there are so many possibilities where this man might have set up camp, but far more hiking trails than camp sites. I wonder if he set up camp on one of the hiking trails? I wouldn't think that a very bright move, and certainly not one approved by the forestry management.

We shall see.

analog

Well all of your assumptions about me and where i've been aside, that's a very thorough explanation. My personal experience remains unchanged, but i'm willing to accept that it's simply not been the case for me even if it's truly more the norm from your experience.

Also, not being from the Eastern United States, I am going to assume you don't know that...

"Florida's state park system is one of the largest in the country with over 150 parks spanning 730,000 acres of breathtaking landscapes. Recreational opportunities abound with 3,300 campsites, 150 cabins, 108 miles of sandy beaches and more than 1,600 miles of hiking, canoeing, kayaking, bicycling and equestrian trails.

Florida State Parks was once again awarded the National Recreation and Parks Association's Gold Medal Award, honoring Florida as the "Nation's Best State Park Service"."

- http://www.floridastateparks.org/

Florida's hardly a slouchy state for state parks, i'm not sure where you got your "1 to our 14" figure. Our state parks are also quite well maintained and marked. The square mileage per park might not be what it is there, but they're hardly small parks either.

I've also been to a few state parks in New York, Bear Mountain State Park among them, to hunt and camp, and took day trips to two state parks in Idaho. Beautiful falls and canyons there.

snowy

I was talking about national forests. Florida has 1 to our 14.

__________________
If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Reese

Mammoth Cave National Park is pretty close to where I live. I would assume that other national parks have big signs with safety tips posted when entering the park. Hell, the very first Safety Tip on the Mammoth Cave website is "WATCH YOUR FOOTING!" Guess what the second tip is... "...use extra caution when walking in areas with low light." They have the same tips in pamplets and on big signs on roads and trails. IF This happened 30 foot from a tourist center where the wood is supplied, and the firepits are dug for you then yah I would say this guy has a case. However this story reads more like this guy was in the "Wild." He had to know that this place wasn't made for his safety. There's no way the government should be responsible for this guy's stupidity and bad luck.

__________________
“It is better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick” - Dave Barry

analog

I wasn't paying attention. Congratulations. Your state has a shitload of trees.

To be accurate, though, Oregon has 14 to our 4.

It's not a pissing contest. I was disappointed that you automatically assume that since I live in Florida I'm a clueless idiot to the rest of the world.

/threadjack

The_Jazz

OK, first of all the US Government has soveriegn immunity and can't be sued for bodily injury happening on their property. It's exactly the same as if you slip and fall on the Capitol steps - you still can't sue the government, nor should you be able to. It's the same as sueing yourself.

As far as "frivolous" lawsuits go, I've seen huge payouts on things that look frivolous to those ignorant of all the facts. I had a large crane account that I wrote for several years that paid out over $1M after a guy broke into a construction site and hung himself from a crane. Sounds frivolous, but it turned out that the police called the contractor and told them that this guy had been talking about it for a while and had told someone that he was going to do it that night. They should have known.

Just because you think a suit is "frivolous" doesn't make it so. This particular guy has no case because he's sueing the wrong party (or rather a party that is immune from the suit), but that doesn't mean that he wouldn't stand a decent chance of winning money if he had been camping on private land instead of public.

You can now resume your dick-measuring contest with national parks being used as the ruler. Good luck with that, especially you Ms. Onesnowyowl.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Jinn

While I certainly respect your insurance background, I think you are incorrect on the extent of the US Government's sovereign immunity. The Federal Tort Claims Act waives the right to sovereign immunity in the case that a federal employee causes the damage, including negligence. In this case, their is a basis for a tort case in negligence - specifically, breach of duty negligence.

I tend to believe the lawyer better understands his reason for filing against the US Government than you do.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

The_Jazz

While I don't really want to get into a discussion on torts, I will point out that the Federal Tort Claims Act discrecionary function exclusion pretty much takes care of this kind of claim on a blanket basis, especially given that scenery preservation is a key point of the exclusion.

It's entirely possible that Mr. Messereau doesn't have a lawyer and filed this suit himself. It's also possible that it was done for him by a parent, sibling or best friend from college as a favor. It's also possible that he hired a lawyer who isn't really all that smart. Regardless, that lawyer has a very tough case to win since this exact claim is specifically excluded from the FTCA.

Why do I know all this? Nebraska tried to pass a similar law a few years ago because of the Omaha Court House and the fact that the floors there are slick as ice whenever there's any rain or snow. It took me about 5 minutes to find in my files today since I had the draft text for the bill when they were renewing the coverage a few years ago. We tried to use it to drive down the price but it never made it out of committee. If I can find the FTCA text that quickly in paper files, I imagine that anyone doing a google search can find it quicker.

I'll bet that there is more to this story that what's posted above. There are probably other parties (even if they're John Doe's) or at least more allegations than the simple failure to post warning claim that most ambulance chasers throw out there.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

raeanna74

After looking up Mt Hood National Forest, I came up with 30 campgrounds in the state park that actually have drinking water, and 25 that has handicapped access out of a total of 84 camp sites in the entire forest. Some of which are not accessible even without hiking in. There are warnings on some of the roads and trails to be wary of rock slides.

Out of 84 camp sites besides the camping available IN the forest itself, I cannot imagine being willing to spend more of my tax dollars to protect Darwin's best. There is no reason he shouldn't have checked out his campsite prior to setting up camp. That's a pretty common sense thing to do. Besides taking a flashlight with him. If he ever camped anywhere he knew he'd need a flashlight.

If this goes very far in court it will be hard for me to wish him 'safety' the next time he goes camping.

__________________
"Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama
My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

monkeysugar

What a moron. If it is dark enough that you can't find one of the many trees in the Mt. Hood National Forest to duck behind, it should be safe to assume that it is dark enough that nobody's going to see your dangly bits when you're taking a piss.

__________________
I've got the love of my life and a job that I enjoy most of the time. Life is good.

legolas

i think personal responsibility was out the window a long time ago and i don't think common sense has ever been too common.

__________________
"To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems."

Jex

The bush is the bush - the government could put guard rails in the most frequented area and the guy could wander further down and fall off. You can't fence everything off so we all take a little personal resposibility.
Remember that the governement represents us, so sueing the government is essentially sueing yourself - so, who was negligent? You or the people you elect to represent you? Either way you have some responsibility.

smooth

I HATE when the forum erases my responses!

basically, I was writing that I've camped in places in mt. hood and while there are places you can go where no one's around, the places most often camped are legit and marked. you drive up, park in a designated (sometimes paved) stall in front of your site, pay your fee to the wooden box, pitch your tent in the designated area next to the firepit. then you can wander off to go pee in a brick and mortar bathroom, complete with showers.

it may not be roughing it, but you also can't hack up the forest for your firefodder. You have to grab a bundle from a store, a local merchant, or a park ranger. I'm assuming this is to prevent the forest from being hacked and mangled by the thousands of visitors each weekend. and also since the BLM (bureau of land management) is responsible for maintaining the forests' health. in this case, the local Salem forest service officials might work in conjunction with BLM, but the USDA Forest Service does not maintain oregon forestry to my knowledge (unless they are an entity under the larger BLM umbrella).

I also had some notes about the complex relationship fed/local authorities, corporate/local loggers, environmentalists, and none-of-the-above citizens have with the "ownership" and stewardship of the oregon forests. in short, there are deep cultural and political rifts between many groups in oregon that I witnessed while living there for 10 years.

anyway, here you go, http://www.mthoodterritory.com/camping.jsp
lots of places are described, including ready to operate RV parks in Mt. Hood.
in my opinion, it's one thing to say I hiked to the top of a mountain and fell off the side but quite another to set up camp in a designated area, within which in many places exist properly paved stalls with actual buildings, and fall off a broken section of a designated trail that should have been repaired and at the very least marked off.

if you don't like the highway and pothole analogy, then consider that in southern cali where I grew up and now live again, numerous places along the coast and beaches are marked off as unsafe and have guardrails, signage, and no-tresspassing sections.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

thingstodo

We sure spend a lot of time defending nothing lawsuits.

Companies deal with this with employees all the time. If there's just a little bit of something and they can get a lawyer involved, the employee go for the lawsuit. Often a lawyer will take the case for a percentage just to obtain a small negotiated settlement and the person filing the suit ends up with nothing! While the lawyer builds their practice.

I should have been a lawyer...

__________________
If you're wringing your hands you can't roll up your shirt sleeves.

Stangers have the best candy.

Munku

A 5 dollar flashlight would have solved all his problems..

Xerxys

^^ Yeah, he should have carried protection!!!

Nisses

It took you 3 years to come up with that Xerxys?

__________________
Moderation should be moderately moderated.

DaniGirl

This is crazy, one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. I don't think his lawsuit should be dismissed I think they should arrest him for wasting time and money. And for being so fucking stupid. This reminds me of those two fat stupid bitches trying to sue Mc Donalds for making them fat.

And why is everyone always picking on Xerxys?