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.

 paulson games wrote:
They really need to have signs posted everywhere that read "beware of giant nuts" that way I could steal one and hang it on my wall like a frat house decoration.

I'm still laughing 5 minutes after reading this.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I'll admit ignorance on how legal matters like this work but if organizations violate their own policies regarding safety can they found liable for the accidents that occur because of their negligence? Or does it have to be based on state law regarding safety?

Any internal policies an organization may have don't carry weight of law by themselves.

Example, if it is not required for food handlers to wear gloves(only wash their hands) but most companies have policies that you must wear gloves in addition to washing your hands. If I work somewhere that requires gloves and I don't wear gloves I'm not criminally liable for anything that might happen, nor is my employer. The most that could happen is I get sacked for not following company policy.

Relapse wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I'll admit ignorance on how legal matters like this work but if organizations violate their own policies regarding safety can they found liable for the accidents that occur because of their negligence? Or does it have to be based on state law regarding safety?

Any policy is in place because of a reason, so the man might actually have a case he can attempt to bring forward if a safety policy was ignored to his detriment.

Again, the internal policies themselves will not likely be grounds, in and of themselves, to determine negligence unless the plaintiff is able to prove that there was a policy specific to pine cones or other objects that might fall from trees AND someone failed to perform due diligence AND the purported negligence was NOT due to a lack of training. In federal
Tort cases, negligence can not exist through lack of training.

 agnosto wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I'll admit ignorance on how legal matters like this work but if organizations violate their own policies regarding safety can they found liable for the accidents that occur because of their negligence? Or does it have to be based on state law regarding safety?

Any policy is in place because of a reason, so the man might actually have a case he can attempt to bring forward if a safety policy was ignored to his detriment.

Again, the internal policies themselves will not likely be grounds, in and of themselves, to determine negligence unless the plaintiff is able to prove that there was a policy specific to pine cones or other objects that might fall from trees AND someone failed to perform due diligence AND the purported negligence was NOT due to a lack of training. In federal
Tort cases, negligence can not exist through lack of training.

I'm no lawyer, so I figure your opinion is probably good as any.

Whoops disregard.

All gone.

Ah ok, I apologise then. Misinterpreted your post.

Sorry.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Ah ok, I apologise then. Misinterpreted your post.

Sorry.

No worries. I've made enough similar mistakes.

Just another "coffee is hot" type case. What are we going to have to put up warning signs everywhere there is even the slight chance of getting hurt?

My sympathies go to the man personally.


Having your skull crushed is a horrible thing to happen, and I have never even imagined a pinecone weighing that much (thats insane!)


I don't know if the park should be liable or not. If they didn't follow their own/ the governments safety specifications then I think he will win the suit otherwise I don't think so.

Relapse wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I'll admit ignorance on how legal matters like this work but if organizations violate their own policies regarding safety can they found liable for the accidents that occur because of their negligence? Or does it have to be based on state law regarding safety?

Any policy is in place because of a reason, so the man might actually have a case he can attempt to bring forward if a safety policy was ignored to his detriment.

Again, the internal policies themselves will not likely be grounds, in and of themselves, to determine negligence unless the plaintiff is able to prove that there was a policy specific to pine cones or other objects that might fall from trees AND someone failed to perform due diligence AND the purported negligence was NOT due to a lack of training. In federal
Tort cases, negligence can not exist through lack of training.

I'm no lawyer, so I figure your opinion is probably good as any.

Yep. All my opinion.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

“He’s afraid to go outside at this point because he’s afraid something is going to hit him in the head,” Johnson said. “Our priority is to institute change and help this guy out. He was doing pretty well before the accident, and now he is completely dependent and will likely need lifetime care.”

I wouldnt be so quick to call that fear unreasonable. That pinecone *did* crush his skull. Its not unreasonable to assume that it hasnt healed yet, or may never heal fully. If youd be happy leaving your house with your squishy brain free to the elements, be my guest.

Ironically, theres a greater risk of something falling on his head if he stays at home, like a random object falling off a shelf, than outside in the open air.

I agree. Thats why I try to leave everything in piles on floor. Strangely, this greatly increases the risk of potential head trauma due to the wife's bat accidentally hitting my skull.

A little surprised at some of the posts here because it seems so clear cut to me:

Man hit by pine cone, no injury, tree is native: frivolous lawsuit

Man hit by giant seed pod from non-native tree, is gravely injured, NPS should have removed it but didn't: maybe he has a case, but ultimately I think it's a little iffy as the NPS can't be omnipresent in removing all non-native flora and fauna.

Man hit by giant seed pod from non-native tree, is gravely injured, not only should the NPS have removed it but didn't, but they also planted the damn thing: that seems like a pretty clear win to me.

YMMV but I think he should win every penny.

 Ouze wrote:
A little surprised at some of the posts here because it seems so clear cut to me:

Man hit by pine cone, no injury, tree is native: frivolous lawsuit

Man hit by giant seed pod from non-native tree, is gravely injured, NPS should have removed it but didn't: maybe he has a case, but ultimately I think it's a little iffy as the NPS can't be omnipresent in removing all non-native flora and fauna.

Man hit by giant seed pod from non-native tree, is gravely injured, not only should the NPS have removed it but didn't, but they also planted the damn thing: that seems like a pretty clear win to me.

YMMV but I think he should win every penny.

^This, for me. Normally I'm against these sort of lawsuits, but I hope the law works in this guy's favour.

Why is the tree being non native relevant?

There are policies at the park that require the removal of exotic species, supposedly. I don't know where to find them; I think they were mentioned in the OP?

 insaniak wrote:
Why is the tree being non native relevant?

Two reasons:

1) It removes the "he should have known about it" excuse, because it's not a tree he could reasonably expect to be familiar with.

2) Park policy is to remove any non-naitive species that create a safety hazard. The tree was only there in the first place because someone failed to do their job.

 Peregrine wrote:
1) It removes the "he should have known about it" excuse, because it's not a tree he could reasonably expect to be familiar with.

'He should have known about it' wasn't ever given as an 'excuse'.

'He should have looked up' was.

2) Park policy is to remove any non-naitive species that create a safety hazard. The tree was only there in the first place because someone failed to do their job.

That makes it an internal matter for park management, not a legal issue.

 insaniak wrote:
'He should have looked up' was.

That's effectively the same as "he should have known about it", because most people don't look up to check for lethal pine cones because there's generally no reason to. And even if he had looked up he'd still have to know that the pine cone is heavy enough to cause a potentially fatal injury and not just heavy enough to hurt a bit. That's assuming way too much skill in evaluating tree safety.

That makes it an internal matter for park management, not a legal issue.

It's a legal issue because they acknowledged that a safety risk existed and did absolutely nothing to mitigate that risk. The employee(s) who violated the park's "this is how we protect our visitors" policy are guilty of reckless disregard for the safety of those visitors. And it's also a legal issue because the existence of such a policy implies to visitors that they are not in any danger from non-native species. If you say "this is a safe place because we actively work to remove the hazards" and then blatantly ignore a hazard that gets someone hurt you should be legally responsible for your failure.

(Now, whether or not the guy can successfully sue the government without it getting tossed out of court under our ridiculous "the government can pardon itself for any crime that it doesn't want to be punished for" laws is an entirely separate issue. But the park should be responsible, and failure to hold the park responsible is a failure by our legal system.)

 Peregrine wrote:

That's effectively the same as "he should have known about it", because most people don't look up to check for lethal pine cones because there's generally no reason to. And even if he had looked up he'd still have to know that the pine cone is heavy enough to cause a potentially fatal injury and not just heavy enough to hurt a bit. That's assuming way too much skill in evaluating tree safety.

It's not the same thing at all.

I don't need to know that getting run over specifically by a 57 Chevy is bad for me in order to get out of the way of I'm standing in the middle of a highway watching one hurtle towards me at 110 miles an hour.

Similarly, I don't need to know anything about Bunya Pines in order to think, on seeing pine cones the size of my head dangling off the bloody thing, that there might be a better place to have a kip.

'Most people don't bother to look for hazards before choosing to sleep under something that might potentially fall on them ' is not a justification for suing someone when that thing you choose to sleep under falls on you, any more than 'most people don't really look where they're going' would be justification for me to sue if I wander out in front of the aforementioned Chevy.

 insaniak wrote:
Why is the tree being non native relevant?

The argument is that it was purposely planted by the government. This actually is very important. In purposely planting a non-native (read deathworld...even now packs of killer drop bears are spawning in secret) plant they effectively are creating a duty of care for their actions.

 Frazzled wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Why is the tree being non native relevant?

The argument is that it was purposely planted by the government. This actually is very important. In purposely planting a non-native (read deathworld...even now packs of killer drop bears are spawning in secret) plant they effectively are creating a duty of care for their actions.

Good point but in counter, a defense attorney can point out that the plaintiff has a duty of care to avoid injury to himself by being aware of his surroundings and potential hazards. Just like in car accidents, people may be assigned some portion of responsibility for being in an accident if the court finds that they did not attempt to mitigate injury. There's a legal term for this but I can't recall it.

 insaniak wrote:
Why is the tree being non native relevant?

It's a damn illegal alien tree?

Cut that fether down and turn it into a ship and send it back to wherever it came from (Oregon or whatevs).

 agnosto wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Why is the tree being non native relevant?

The argument is that it was purposely planted by the government. This actually is very important. In purposely planting a non-native (read deathworld...even now packs of killer drop bears are spawning in secret) plant they effectively are creating a duty of care for their actions.

Good point but in counter, a defense attorney can point out that the plaintiff has a duty of care to avoid injury to himself by being aware of his surroundings and potential hazards. Just like in car accidents, people may be assigned some portion of responsibility for being in an accident if the court finds that they did not attempt to mitigate injury. There's a legal term for this but I can't recall it.

Agreed there. I am just making some argument that they could in fact make an argument ton that point.

 kronk wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Why is the tree being non native relevant?

It's a damn illegal alien tree?

Cut that fether down and turn it into a ship and send it back to wherever it came from (Oregon or whatevs).

That daum tree is trying to take a job away from a god fearin 'merican.

#theyretakinourjobs


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Why is the tree being non native relevant?

The argument is that it was purposely planted by the government. This actually is very important. In purposely planting a non-native (read deathworld...even now packs of killer drop bears are spawning in secret) plant they effectively are creating a duty of care for their actions.

Good point but in counter, a defense attorney can point out that the plaintiff has a duty of care to avoid injury to himself by being aware of his surroundings and potential hazards. Just like in car accidents, people may be assigned some portion of responsibility for being in an accident if the court finds that they did not attempt to mitigate injury. There's a legal term for this but I can't recall it.

Agreed there. I am just making some argument that they could in fact make an argument ton that point.

Yep. He's got an argument it just remains to see if the court agrees.

Question. Are drop-bears trainable?

Have you ever seen them pull a train on someone?

 Mojo1jojo wrote:
Just another "coffee is hot" type case. What are we going to have to put up warning signs everywhere there is even the slight chance of getting hurt?

You do know that Liebeck v. McDonald's actually had a HUGE justification right?

You can expect coffee to be hot. You don't expect coffee to be 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit or to give you third degree burns if spilled on you.
Just like you can expect falling debris from trees, but you don't expect a 16 pound pine cone.

Having made coffee by pouring boiling water over coffee grounds I have always thought it would be fething hot. This has been borne out on the times I have drunk it poured straight out of the pot without waiting for it to cool down.

Perhaps McDonalds were not serving native coffee, or had a policy to serve it cold.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Have you ever seen them pull a train on someone?

This is an image I did not want in my head.

 insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

That's effectively the same as "he should have known about it", because most people don't look up to check for lethal pine cones because there's generally no reason to. And even if he had looked up he'd still have to know that the pine cone is heavy enough to cause a potentially fatal injury and not just heavy enough to hurt a bit. That's assuming way too much skill in evaluating tree safety.

It's not the same thing at all.

I don't need to know that getting run over specifically by a 57 Chevy is bad for me in order to get out of the way of I'm standing in the middle of a highway watching one hurtle towards me at 110 miles an hour.

Similarly, I don't need to know anything about Bunya Pines in order to think, on seeing pine cones the size of my head dangling off the bloody thing, that there might be a better place to have a kip.

'Most people don't bother to look for hazards before choosing to sleep under something that might potentially fall on them ' is not a justification for suing someone when that thing you choose to sleep under falls on you, any more than 'most people don't really look where they're going' would be justification for me to sue if I wander out in front of the aforementioned Chevy.

This is a false equivalent. Your argument is based on his 'common sense' to determine the dangers posed by being near a tree, which btw is generally NOT dangerous, of which there were no warning signs or efforts made to make potential visitors aware of the fact that the object hanging from said tree weighed nearly 20lbs and posed a danger to people in the vicinity.

That's not the same as being in rhe middle of the road and not looking for cars correctly and then being hit.