Man attempts to sue the National Park Service for $5mm after 16 lb. Pine Cone hits him in the Head

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Kilkrazy**

Ouze wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
If you saw a tiger in the park, and decided to lie down and go to sleep underneath it, would you in any way responsible for an injury that might result?

Why do you guys keep ignoring the fact the government that is being sued is the same party responsible for introducing this danger in the first place? It's pretty glaring at this point. You keep saying things like, well, a branch could have fallen out of a tree, or he could have been hit by lightning, or any other (reasonable expectation of danger from a normal tree) and just pretending that this wasn't a danger any reasonable American could have foreseen (since it's not a native tree) and that the government should apparently feel free to introduce any dangerous thing they like in violation of internal policy free of consequence both legal and moral?

By the way, the NPS has since added signs and netting.

Because I don't think it matters. I think the guy was a fool to look at a tree surrounded by massive fallen nuts, lie down under it and look up at some massive nuts above him, and not think they might fall down. That is simply a matter of stupidity, whether the species was native or not.

**Ouze**

Well, I don't think we're going to come to an agreement.

**agnosto**

The trees in question:

Spoiler:

Sign and fence that the park service has put up since the incident:

Spoiler:

Looks like a fairly high traffic area; I wonder why this hasn't happened before.

I also wonder what time of day it was. It's illegal to sleep in parks in San Francisco between 8pm and 8am.

As I said before, I'm really thinking that if this thing actually is allowed to go to trial that there will be apportionment of fault between the plaintiff and defendant.

Edit:
Spoilered the pics

**DoomShakaLaka**

agnosto wrote:
The trees in question:

Spoiler:

Sign and fence that the park service has put up since the incident:

Spoiler:

Looks like a fairly high traffic area; I wonder why this hasn't happened before.

I also wonder what time of day it was. It's illegal to sleep in parks in San Francisco between 8pm and 8am.

As I said before, I'm really thinking that if this thing actually is allowed to go to trial that there will be apportionment of fault between the plaintiff and defendant.

Those trees have 16lb pinecones in them? How big are the pinecones themselves?

NVM I just googled it, it looks like they were this big:

Spoiler:

Those things are freaking huge.

**Pilau Rice**

He's lucky he wasn't crushed to death

**Tannhauser42**

Damn, those things do look like pineapples. Wouldn't want one hitting my noggin.

**agnosto**

Pilau Rice wrote:
He's lucky he wasn't crushed to death

Do you have a serial crusher theory?

**Peregrine**

agnosto wrote:
Looks like a fairly high traffic area; I wonder why this hasn't happened before.

Probably sheer luck. Which is another reason why it makes no sense to blame the guy for being careless, someone who was just walking underneath the trees and not sleeping could have been hit just as easily.

**Kilkrazy**

The longer you expose yourself to enemy fire the more likely you are to get hit.

**Kanluwen**

Kilkrazy wrote:
The longer you expose yourself to enemy fire the more likely you are to get hit.

Those Park Service employees deserve Medals of Honor then, avoiding the fruit of these deadly coniferous terrorists!

**Peregrine**

Kilkrazy wrote:
The longer you expose yourself to enemy fire the more likely you are to get hit.

That's actually a very accurate analogy. If someone is shooting at you we still hold them liable for their actions, and we don't let them say "but he wasn't taking cover, of course he was going to get hit".

**agnosto**

Peregrine wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
The longer you expose yourself to enemy fire the more likely you are to get hit.

That's actually a very accurate analogy. If someone is shooting at you we still hold them liable for their actions, and we don't let them say "but he wasn't taking cover, of course he was going to get hit".

I disagree, there's a world of difference between attempted homicide and negligence. Negligence is a tort offense whereas attempting to kill someone is a civil matter. Torts don't put you in jail. If you're saying that the park service employees intentionally left these trees in the ground for several decades and intentionally did not post signage of possible risk to passersby, then there's no case because you can only sue the federal government for tort offenses under the FTCA, you can't press criminal charges against the federal government.