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.

 Frazzled wrote:

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

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

Yeah, I hope that he meant something outside of the slang reference. ick.

I have no idea what's going on in this thread anymore.

It's perfectly. Some guy who got nutted on the nut by a giant nut is trying to sue the nuts off the government, and other people are saying nuts to that.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's perfectly. Some guy who got nutted on the nut by a giant nut is trying to sue the nuts off the government, and other people are saying nuts to that.

You've said nut 1 too many times... The end times are upon us.

 kronk wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's perfectly. Some guy who got nutted on the nut by a giant nut is trying to sue the nuts off the government, and other people are saying nuts to that.

You've said nut 1 too many times... The end times are upon us.

The squirrels! My god, it's the squirrels!!!!!!!!

Frazzled wrote: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.

I agree. I think there was already a (weak) duty of care by virtue of their mandate to have removed it in the first place, and their failure to do so, but that they introduced the hazard themselves in the first place seems so open and shut to me that I'm literally and honestly having a hard time understanding why anyone would not think they are liable for the action they were directly responsible for.

agnosto wrote: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.

I can't remember it either but lets put that aside. At most, I think this this is a rational for a possible split of responsibility; which would reduce an award, just as it did with Liebeck vs McDonalds, in which the plaintiff was found 20% responsible. How responsible was this guy for not identifying these (foreign) seed pods and recognizing they are very heavy? We can argue that, but now we're arguing over the peas and not the steak; I will stipulate that he had at least some degree of responsibility if we can also agree that the NPS bears the overwhelming majority.

The counterargument is that while there is a duty to care, it's unreasonable to expect an American to be on the lookout for a dangerous Australian tree that most Americans don't know exist, and certainly don't expect to encounter in a small suburban park. That the tree was planted by the NPS really seals the deal, as I said earlier. The "due care" argument would probably demolish such a case if the man were hypothetically hit in the head with a coconut while napping under a palm tree in Hawaii, or what have you, where that's a reasonable danger.

 Ouze wrote:


The counterargument is that while there is a duty to care, it's unreasonable to expect an American to be on the lookout for a dangerous Australian tree that most Americans don't know exist, and certainly don't expect to encounter in a small suburban park. That the tree was planted by the NPS really seals the deal, as I said earlier. The "due care" argument would probably demolish such a case if the man were hypothetically hit in the head with a coconut while napping under a palm tree in Hawaii, or what have you, where that's a reasonable danger.

I think it will hinge upon the plaintiff convincing the court that his ignorance of the flora in question has any bearing as it pertains to his duty of care. The US is a surprising diverse ecological environment, one that contains a vast array of indigenous life, a great number of which may be hazardous to a person's health. I can be stung by a scorpion in Oklahoma and be fine but if I'm stung by one in Arizona, it's an entirely different story. People die every year from ignoring poisonous spider bites due to their unfamiliarity with danger signs, etc. There's even been cases of killer bees (an invasive, foreign insect) killing people in the US while the usual US bumblebee would not be as great a hazard. Ignorance of hazard does not necessarily constitute an actionable suit.

In my arm-chair lawyering I think in order to prove negligence, the plaintiff will have to prove:
1. That a policy exists in the park to remove non-native plant-life which includes trees (vs flowers or other plants), you have to be specific in a court.
2. That the park staff were adequately trained and instructed by the federal government to remove said plants/trees.
3. That someone failed to perform their job in removing the trees in question.

If these are met, I feel that the court could then find an individual(s) negligent and then the FTCA would go into effect and the federal government will step in as defendant in place of the federal employee.

My thought is that these trees are fairly old (unless they grow like bamboo, but hey, it's Austrialian, all bets are off) and the original staff who planted it could be long gone (dead, retired or otherwise). If subsequent staff were not adequately trained by the federal government in their duty to remove the trees, there's likely no case according to my reading of the FTCA; as failure to train employees does not constitute negligence and no one can directly sue the federal government. The FTCA only allows people to sue federal employees who are negligent, not a negligent federal government.

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:
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, ...

It is when there is something in said tree that might fall on you.


If it had been a different tree, and a broken branch had fallen on him with the same result, he would have been just as injured.


Anyone claiming that trees aren't dangerous has clearly not spent a lot of time around trees.

 Kanluwen wrote:
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..

Uh... given that coffee is made with boiling water, you certainly should expect it to be at least that hot... and you can get third degree burns from water much cooler than that.

That case got through because the woman's lawyers got a bunch of barristers to testify that the coffee was hotter than they would serve it, and so shouldn't have been that hot. The end result was that for at least a decade afterwards, McDonalds were forced to serve tepid coffee to avoid further lawsuits. All because some idiot thought it was a good idea to drive with a hot cup of coffee held between her legs.

 kronk wrote:
I have no idea what's going on in this thread anymore.

Everyone is in shock at the realization that the Aussie trees may have secretly harbored killer drop bears, and that those drop bears are spreading...

 Frazzled wrote:

 kronk wrote:
I have no idea what's going on in this thread anymore.

Everyone is in shock at the realization that the Aussie trees may have secretly harbored killer drop bears, and that those drop bears are spreading...

^Australia's plan for world domination is coming to fruition.

Well CA is done for. We already have tons of Eucalyptus trees. The Drop Bears are ensuring they a have a food source.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well CA is done for. We already have tons of Eucalyptus trees. The Drop Bears are ensuring they a have a food source.

Time for Operation Disco Shake. Start dropping the fusion bombs on the San Andreas faultline before its too late!

 insaniak wrote:

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:
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, ...

It is when there is something in said tree that might fall on you.


If it had been a different tree, and a broken branch had fallen on him with the same result, he would have been just as injured.

But would that not also fall under the remit of the NPS, with regards to the maintenance of the trees within the park?

 Goliath wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:
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, ...

It is when there is something in said tree that might fall on you.


If it had been a different tree, and a broken branch had fallen on him with the same result, he would have been just as injured.

But would that not also fall under the remit of the NPS, with regards to the maintenance of the trees within the park?

Even the most highly manicured park can have deadfall. Nature is not as orderly as some people seem to think it is. The only reason this case is even close to a possible issue is the apparent unheeded internal policy to remove non-native trees. If it were so easy to sue the park service, it wouldn't exist because well, idiots fall off of cliffs all the time in national parks and there's obviously not a sign on every bluff, cliff, mountain, etc in the country that states "caution, stupid people may fall while climbing." Duty of care. You are responsible for your own safety no matter what people say about the US being a nanny-state.

Now I want there to be a law that all national park cliffs have signs posted that say "stupid people may fall while climbing".

I think all safety signs should have wry sarcasm and pointed humor.

"Thanks to a stupid person, we are now obligated to post this obvious warning that falling off cliffs is hazardous to your health and can potentially result in death"

I want to know something, when yall walk to work, go on a hike, or the park. do you look for bowling ball sized pinecones?

Specifically? No.

Generally do I look for danger? Yeah.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Specifically? No.

Generally do I look for danger? Yeah.

Excellent answer. Have an exalt.

 insaniak wrote:

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:
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, ...

It is when there is something in said tree that might fall on you.


If it had been a different tree, and a broken branch had fallen on him with the same result, he would have been just as injured.

I actually had that happen to me in elementary school. We were having a hurricane coming in, the school let us out early and while I was waiting for my mother to come and pick me up I got whanged in the head by a 2-3inch in diameter piece of tree branch. Luckily it was rotten wood, but I had to go to the hospital after starting to vomit/exhibit a concussion.

Anyone claiming that trees aren't dangerous has clearly not spent a lot of time around trees.

I think there's a bit of a difference between "I know trees are dangerous if stuff falls on me" and "I know that this particular type of tree is dangerous because it has 16 pound pinecones."

 Kanluwen wrote:
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..

Uh... given that coffee is made with boiling water, you certainly should expect it to be at least that hot... and you can get third degree burns from water much cooler than that.

That case got through because the woman's lawyers got a bunch of barristers to testify that the coffee was hotter than they would serve it, and so shouldn't have been that hot. The end result was that for at least a decade afterwards, McDonalds were forced to serve tepid coffee to avoid further lawsuits. All because some idiot thought it was a good idea to drive with a hot cup of coffee held between her legs.

Read the link I provided.

It's actually interesting to see how that case has been misused to showcase the necessity for tort reform in the US.

For example? She wasn't driving. She was riding in a car with her grandson, and the car was parked when the actual incident occurred.

 Kanluwen wrote:

I actually had that happen to me in elementary school. We were having a hurricane coming in, the school let us out early and while I was waiting for my mother to come and pick me up I got whanged in the head by a 2-3inch in diameter piece of tree branch. Luckily it was rotten wood, but I had to go to the hospital after starting to vomit/exhibit a concussion.

Well that explains a great deal. I'm kidding.

 insaniak wrote:
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.

Yes, but you know that cars in general are dangerous. The same is not true of pine cones, since most of them are pretty much harmless.

'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.

Except there's a key difference here: most people don't check for lethal pine cones in an urban park because those places don't usually have dangerous things waiting to fall on your head and you don't really need to be watching for them. But with the road example you aren't putting your trust in a place that is normally safe, you're just being stupid.

Only just noticed this story and my first thought was "Holy gak! A 16-pound pine cone? Really?! I didn't know any trees had anything like that." I feel bad for the guy, and I hope he recovers ok from his surgeries, but it is NOT the government's fault for what is ultimately a miniature natural disaster.

 ZergSmasher wrote:
but it is NOT the government's fault for what is ultimately a miniature natural disaster.

It's not a natural disaster when you're talking about trees planted by the government, in a "park" that is essentially the front lawn of a museum. This is not a remote wilderness area we're talking about.

 Peregrine wrote:
Yes, but you know that cars in general are dangerous. The same is not true of pine cones, since most of them are pretty much harmless.

But is true of trees. And is fairly self-evident when you look up and see round things the size of your head dangling from the tree you're standing under.

Except there's a key difference here: most people don't check for lethal pine cones in an urban park because those places don't usually have dangerous things waiting to fall on your head and you don't really need to be watching for them. .

If you go anywhere with trees, you run the risk of having something fall on your head. Accidents being rare doesn't excuse you from any fault if you choose to walk around with your eyes closed.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I want to know something, when yall walk to work, go on a hike, or the park. do you look for bowling ball sized pinecones?

Yes. It's common sense to watch your environment for potential dangers.

Apparently, if a government employee introduces a tiger into a suburban park, and then someone gets mauled, people on the internet will claim it's the maulee's fault for not expecting to see a tiger in a park in San Francisco, because after all, tigers are a part of nature.

I mean, it's not quite up there with wishing prostate cancer on someone because they disagree with you politically, but I think we're in the same neighborhood.

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?

 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.

 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?

And, as I've said before, that kind of comparison doesn't work. Tigers aren't native to urban parks in the US, but virtually everyone knows what a tiger is and that they are dangerous. The same thing is not true of an obscure tree that most people have probably never even heard of before this incident.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
But is true of trees. And is fairly self-evident when you look up and see round things the size of your head dangling from the tree you're standing under.

Not necessarily. You might realize that the pine cones are larger than normal, but there's a difference between "larger and might hurt a bit" and "larger and can kill you". And, again, this happened in an urban park that is essentially the front lawn of a museum. You don't expect dangerous trees to be there because no sensible park management would ever do something as obviously stupid as planting dangerous trees in a place like that.

If you go anywhere with trees, you run the risk of having something fall on your head. Accidents being rare doesn't excuse you from any fault if you choose to walk around with your eyes closed.

Of course accidents being rare justifies being less careful about avoiding them. You can not reasonably expect people to be operating at maximum paranoia level about all possible risks at all times. A more sensible expectation is that people should be looking for hazards that are reasonable to expect in a given situation. If you're crossing a street you'd better be looking for cars. But you can't reasonably be expected to be watching for incoming meteors when you're trying to cross the street.

And, as Ouze pointed out, the fact that the park operator is responsible for planting the trees in the first place matters. You can talk all you want about how you shouldn't walk with your eyes closed, but if you deliberately dig a hole in the sidewalk and someone gets hurt as a result then you're going to be responsible for the consequences of your action.

(edit - I think Peregrine said it better)