Just thoughts about the choices SITLA had to make on how to deal with Nutty Putty.
Printable View
Just thoughts about the choices SITLA had to make on how to deal with Nutty Putty.
Won't somebody think about the children!
James
Hmm...there seems to be an option missing. :wink:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Udink
Does anyone know how to add an option to the poll?
I was going to add.
Everyone donate some money to Udink to buy the land from SITLA so he can open the cave to the public, build a toll booth and charge 50 cents per person and retire young.
But I cant do it.
Hahah...I was thinking something more along the lines of leaving things status quo. I think their "non-management" strategy has worked well in the past.Quote:
Originally Posted by caverspencer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Udink
Yes it has worked well in the past. but that was before the SAR getting multiple call outs each and every month. And like you siad its political now. They cant just leave it natural, that only stands up in court if it is possible that you didnt know the hazard existed, but with the media attention how could they ignore it any more? there choices were close the cave before someone dies or they get sued. Or let someone else take the responsiblility of managing it. Even simply putting up no trespassing signs doesnt hold up in court if you dont plan to enforce it. And the sherifs office doesnt ahve the resources to patrol and make sure no one goes in.
You should be happy you can still go to the cave.
I'm not gona vote on this one. I feel like I'm being channelized into one idea.
I agree, all three options are the same, and each one basically says that access should be restricted in one way or another.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveOU812
By the way, there's an article in today's Daily Herald in which a SITLA spokesman states unequivocally that their decision to restrict access had nothing to do with liability. If that isn't a load of :bs: then I don't know what is.
In one of the meetings it was spoken by one of the SITLA reps (im not going to name names here publicly) that while they assume no liability staying with the status quo is not the ethical thing to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Udink
If you really think no one is going to die in the cave then why not vote 3?
For some reason this reminds me of the Darwin Awards. There should be a big ass sign at the entrance saying "Hey, caves are dangerous, you could DIE in here". Then if people go in and die that's their problem. Just because there are a few dumbasses in the world, doesn't mean it has to get ruined for the rest of us.
If you own a cliff or mountain and someone falls off and dies, can they sue you? Same thing in my opinion. Now that i think about it, they could fall out of a tree and break their neck as well. Well... let's just cut down the trees and flatten all the cliffs.
:roll:
I am a fan of gating it though. Simply because it might keep vandals and litterbugs out. Worth a try anyways
*Edit* I've never been in this particular cave though *Edit*
If someone gets hurt on Private property the owner is liable yes. Putting up a warning sign actually increases your liablility. This is not the case on public government property though (BLM, Forest Service etc..). Funny how that works... If you have a hazard on your property and you pretend like you dont know about then no one can sue you. But if you put up a sign admitting you know about it then you have just opened the door for someone to sue you for letting them get hurt. Worse than that is if you make an improvemnt to make it safer like putitng in a rope. Leaving things "status quo" is the best option... atleast until the media steps in...Quote:
Originally Posted by deathcricket
In the state in which I live this is absolutely wrong. In most states the statutes are on line. Perhaps you should look up the attractive nuisance statute in Utah before expressing such a completely mistaken legal opinion. In most states (and most of them are part of the Uniform Criminal Code) only hazards you create like a crack house are an attractive nuisance and natural things like caves and cliffs are specifically exempted.Quote:
Originally Posted by caverspencer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tlaloc
I am familair with the law and it can apply to natural hazards as well. Under the right circumstances natural hazards are attractive nuisance. Especially when you draw attention to them. Allurement to trespas applies to both natural and man made hazards. Doing the slightest little tinest thing can increases your liability. Things like putting up "warning dangerous cliff", or "warning dangerous caves and mines" draws attention and can liability. Still worse is doing things to improve the safety. Things like putting in handline or making a bridge across a river are things that increase your liability. Haning said all that, yes you might not have any liability but having no liability does not make you immune to lawsuits. If you are not legally liable you can still be sued and lose the lawsuits.
Having mass media attention is the same thing.
It is all a case by case basis. the courts are the ones to determine. There is not written set in stone rules. If someone owns land that is having lots of accidents and getting lots of media attention and you do nothing about who do you think the court is going to rule in favor of? The only thign the court has to go off of is old cases, and even then just because it was ruled one way in the past doesnt always dictate how they will rule now. Its all a case by case basis.
I still think the state did the right thing by closing it, wether or not they could have lost lawsuit or not.
Here a few quotes I found.
Whether the attractive nuisance doctrine is applicable must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis, with the limited exception of irrigation canals.(1) The trial court must consider the facts and circumstances surrounding a particular injury to determine whether the elements of the rule can be satisfied. Indeed, our prior attractive nuisance cases have suggested that the rule should be applied contextually. See, e.g., Loveland v. Orem City Corp., 746 P.2d 763, 772 (Utah 1987). Except for certain limited conditions, such as irrigation canals, the trend has been to "reject all fixed and arbitrary categories and to require each case to be considered in light of its own peculiar facts." Id.
"possessor of land is under no duty to keep his or her land reasonably safe for an adult trespasser but has a duty to refrain from causing injury to a trespasser intentionally or by willful, wanton or reckless conduct."
"A duty of care arises where a possessor of land has created or maintained on its premises a condition "which in the exercise of due care it should have known would be likely to cause death or serious bodily harm to trespassers when it knew that trespassers used that limited portion of the premises under such circumstances that they would not discover the condition in time to avoid injury." Lucier v. Meriden-Wallingford Sand & Stone Co., 153 Conn. 422, 429, 216 A.2d 818 (1966). Under these circumstances, a landowner is required to use reasonable care to give an adequate warning. Section 335 of Restatement (Second) of Torts, Comment e.3"