Surely the end times are upon us my brothers and sisters. Can I hear an Amen?
Here is a fellow who chooses to do something for the betterment of others, at no cost to anyone, and is told to stop, rather than risking annoyance of the legal trolls beneath the bridge.
Yup.
I hear those 4 Horsemen gathering, for a rubber of bridge or 2, before they get into their “business trip”.
Well, now he will see what kind of community he lives in - whether they put up with that kind of moronic logic or rise up and tell the morons to get out of the way while the guy clears the trail. Stupidity doens’t always win.
You know, I should be mildly annoyed that the topic line was so nondescriptive. But it’s just so cool, I can’t! Damn you, danceswithcats!
And correct me if I’m misreading, but shouldn’t the legal prescedent mentioned at the end of the article protect the government in case someone does sue? Which means that the only one in legal danger is the plower, which he can risk as he pleases?
And if this were the county where you live (assuming it’s not) and you had to pay extra property taxes because someone fell and sued, or had to do without social services because a settlement forced the county to divert funds, would you be pitting the county then or the asshat who plowed without permission? As near as I can tell, the county hasn’t gotten any type of order against this guy, just asked him to stop. If he continues and someone gets hurt, the county has protected itself and its residents.
It sucks that he was made to quite plowing the trail, but the issue of legal liability is very real.
Case in point: I am personally familiar with a case where a business owned a piece of property. Adjacent to that property was a vacant field. Guy, in the course of taking care of his own property, decides to be neighborly and also mow the adjacent property. This goes on for awhile. Some guy later gets hurt on the vacant lot, sues the business owner (and his insurance company) and wins a pretty large judgment.
Sure, the case cited at the end might provide some protection, but we don’t know what exceptions or other nuances exist in that case.
Were I a public official, I’d be wary of letting some guy clear the trail, too. I agree that it’s a wonderfully civic-minded thing for the guy to do, but the issues of liability are very real and I have a responsibility to the taxpayers to not put their hard-earned dollars at unnecessary risk.
On the other hand, sometimes it does.
Society - can’t live with it, can’t go off and live on your own in a compound in Northern Saskatchewan with no one around for hundreds of kilometers - no, wait, I CAN do that!
{back to working on my masterplan}
That’s just depressing…
Someone tries to do a Good Deed but is foiled by the fact that someone might sue someone else because of it. Has anyone mentioned that you have way too many lawyers and sue way too much? That is, like, way wrong…
Wow, county, I’d forgotten what a dick you can be. Why is it “stupid” for governmental agencies to limit their liability?
Well, to quote one of our famous Southern writers (Faulkner): There’s a place where the law stops and people start.
The trail is there for the people to use, covered or cleared and one of the people is clearing it, for himself and others. That is a good thing. Lawyers always think and talk in terms of liability, and that’s ok. The problem comes in when people make decisions based on that alone. Hell, if you are worried about liability then close the fucking trail or park or whatever it is.
As far as how big my dick is, well, if you want to, bite me.
Trust me when I say, county, that there are few things I care about less in this world than the size of your dick. Ahed of it on that list is your lack of reading comprehension. I didn’t say I’d forgotten how large a dick you have; I said I forgot bow large a dick you are.
On what basis would you suggest that the county make its decision on this unsanctioned plowing, if not liability?
Well, on the basis of benefit to the public, utilization of the trail. You know, the reasons that it exists.
And, I am concerned about your preoccupation with my dick.
How is this different from typical trail users moving fallen branches out of the way? Honestly throw a few damn signs up “Trails are maintained by staff and users. Use at own risk” at the entrances and be done with it.
If it’s of benefit to the public that the trail be plowed, then the public should petition the county to plow it instead of taking it upon itself to do it. Perhaps the people who get paid to maintain the trails are better-equipped to determine the best way to maintain them.
No need to be concerned. Short subjects bore me.
This concerns me, and I know this is slippery-sloping things, but hell, it’s the Pit, so…
A nature trail runs right by my appartment, and I love to walk on it. Last year I found a pointy bit of metal in the middle of the path, and I cleared it off. Should I not have? Should I -stop- doing this, because, lord forbid, someone using the path should start thinking ‘hey, maybe there aren’t bits of trash laying about, and I should feel safe using the nature trail’? I swear. I used to be a real law-and-order guy, but in the past few months I’m learning there are a lot of laws that not only don’t make sense, but seem pretty damn counter-intuitive.
Absolutely not. In fact, you should be strewing the path with broken glass and caltrops, to combat the irrational expectation of complete personal safety at all times.
Shoulda, woulda, coulda, fuck that. Let the guy clear the trail (And thank him), people are gonna sue no matter what, it was a big mistake to let lawyers advertise.
As far as liability, well here’s a part of the story that seems to have been overlooked in some people zeal to provide ignorant legal advice:
>Lawsuits along trails are not unheard of.
The district was sued by Janet Mull after a September 1999 fall on a rut in the Great Western Trail. Though she won at trial, the verdict was reversed the state’s Second District Appellate Court in March 2003, largely because of a state statue that says “neither a local public entity or public employee is liable for an injury caused by a condition of … any hiking, riding, fishing or hunting trail.”<
And, now you’re fantasizing about the size of my dick.
Seeing as how you missed this direct addressing of the statement you quote, I hope you weren’t asserting that this prescedent somehow shielded the county from any and all possibility of suit…
IANAL, but I think the solution Grey proposed should work.