If a tree falls in a forest does it make a sound?

[Raptor With a Saber]

Apparently so if it hits a kid, Now these people are suing the USFS because a tree hit their son. My question to you is....

Do they have a case?

IMO no they shouldn't be able to as it was an "act of god" They can't monitor every tree in the park.

An Idaho family has sued the U.S. Forest Service demanding more than $1 million after a large dead tree at a remote campsite fell and injured their young son.

Richard and Melinda Armstrong, of Caldwell, said their family was camping in the Boise National Forest in September 2010 when a gust of wind blew over the dead tree. It fell on their son, resulting in a large laceration, a compound fracture and a puncture wound in his back that impaired his breathing.

The boy, who was 6 at the time, was taken by helicopter to a hospital in Boise.

The couple said the Forest Service was negligent because it didn't remove the tree, which was a hazard. They're suing for more than $1 million in damages and emotional stress in federal court.

"The tree was clearly dead — had been dead for years — and was within eight feet of the fire ring, and within 48 feet of the Forest Service road," said Eric Rossman, their attorney in Boise, on Wednesday. "It was an obvious hazard."

Rossman said the Armstrong's son has undergone multiple surgeries and suffered "severe permanent impairment" of his leg.

The U.S. Forest Service didn't immediately return a phone call seeking comment on Wednesday.

At issue is whether the federal agency had a responsibility to ensure that a site where people frequented and was near a public road was adequately protected from a potentially dangerous tree.

There have been similar lawsuits elsewhere, including an Oregon man who sued the Forest Service in 2010 after he was struck and injured by a tree while driving in his truck. That case was settled earlier this year and has been dismissed.

The Armstrongs' camping trip took them about 50 miles north of Boise, to a remote Forest Service road east of the hamlet of Ola in Gem County. They contend the place along Squaw Creek where they were overnighting was, in fact, a developed campsite, according to the Forest Service's definition.

But even if the campsite was not considered to be developed, according to their complaint, the improvements there, including a fire ring made of rocks, and the Forest Service's knowledge that it was a place where people camped regularly created a duty for the agency "to take immediate measures to inspect and remove the tree, close the site and/or warn user at the site of the serious risk of injury, death or property damage."

[Darkrulerxxx]

I agree with you OP, Shit happens and unfortunately, freak accidents happen and its just bad luck; the Family is just trying to fish for money. Pretty pathetic

[Rodna]

If it's an obvious hazard, why did they let their son play next to it?

[Deleted]

From what I read, they knew the tree was dead and they still camped near it.

Genius.

[Rucati]

What a joke, the sad part is they'll probably get something.

"Hey son, see that dead tree over there? Run over and play next to it, maybe bang into it a couple times, it's totally safe. And if not, we'll just sue them."... That must have been their thought process, since they obviously knew the tree was dead beforehand.

[smelltheglove]

i think my answer will be: it's a forest, not a chuck e cheese. dead trees are part of it, in fact they are very important. they provide homes for critters, and deadfall is also important. and if it was so obvious that it should have been removed then it should have been obvious enough to not camp under. there are certain risks that are inherent to nature, and it is not possible or even desirable for them to be entirely eliminated. for me this incident falls under "personal responsibility"

[Ssith]

i didn't think the parks service COULD take down dead trees. they're part of the ecosystem, and the parks services aren't supposed to mess with it unless/until it messes with people.

[Reeve]

Sounds like a totally frivolous suit to me.

[Very Tired]

Emotional Damages? Would medical bills seem better?

[s_bushido]

From what I read, they knew the tree was dead and they still camped near it.

Genius.

lol

But they can't profit off of their son's misfortune by suing themselves.

[Deleted]

i didn't think the parks service COULD take down dead trees. they're part of the ecosystem, and the parks services aren't supposed to mess with it unless/until it messes with people.

Them not taking down a dead tree, Did make a mess of a person.

as I see it there are multiple people to blame.
The Forrest service for not removing a dead tree which was an obvious health hazard in a public area.
The parents for knowingly camping or using the fire circle where there was an obvious hazard.
Society for accepting believing that when when an accident / act of god happens that someone should pay some money for it.

I understand that the US doesn't have a free health care system, so the money (if any awarded) would or should go to medical costs, so for that reason alone I would say yes they are entitled to some recompense, but only for the medical costs since they obviously camped in an area where there was a clearly dead tree and there was a remote possibility of it causing an accident.

[Themius]

Listen if a supermarket leaves a large puddle of bright pink soap in the middle of an aisle and a person sees it but thinks "I'll be okay" and falls, it is still the fault of the supermarket if they knew about it yet did nothing about it, thinking "it's obvious enough, right?"

[Rodna]

Listen if a supermarket leaves a large puddle of bright pink soap in the middle of an aisle and a person sees it but thinks "I'll be okay" and falls, it is still the fault of the supermarket if they knew about it yet did nothing about it, thinking "it's obvious enough, right?"

Actually in such a case the person walking into it deliberately would be assessed at least 50% of the blame.

Also a supermarket is qualitatively different from the wilderness. Though then again, this is the same place where the USFS was sued for not posting signs to tell people to... not drive off the roads.

[smelltheglove]

Listen if a supermarket leaves a large puddle of bright pink soap in the middle of an aisle and a person sees it but thinks "I'll be okay" and falls, it is still the fault of the supermarket if they knew about it yet did nothing about it, thinking "it's obvious enough, right?"

the puddle doesnt serve any purpose, it's not part of an ecosystem. a dead tree actually does serve a purpose in an ecosystem. the camp spot was well off the beaten path by it's description, rock circle or not (which does not indicate an "official campsite")

[Garnier Fructis]

Listen if a supermarket leaves a large puddle of bright pink soap in the middle of an aisle and a person sees it but thinks "I'll be okay" and falls, it is still the fault of the supermarket if they knew about it yet did nothing about it, thinking "it's obvious enough, right?"

I would think the supermarket would be at fault, because I usually see those warning signs when that happens. I'm not sure about the law though. Either way, I don't think a supermarket is really comparable to a forest. There is an inherent danger in nature that, barring some freak occurrence, is not present in a supermarket.

[Themius]

I would think the supermarket would be at fault, because I usually see those warning signs when that happens. I'm not sure about the law though. Either way, I don't think a supermarket is really comparable to a forest. There is an inherent danger in nature that, barring some freak occurrence, is not present in a supermarket.

There is... but if they are responsible for it and if it's at a camp site, why was this not taken care of?

[Rodna]

I would think the supermarket would be at fault, because I usually see those warning signs when that happens.

That's usually because its wet and slippery but has no obvious signs. Now, I'm not sure being pink and slippery is obvious as such, but if a person deliberately walked on it knowing its slippery and then slips, they'd have to share in the blame.

[s_bushido]

Listen if a supermarket leaves a large puddle of bright pink soap in the middle of an aisle and a person sees it but thinks "I'll be okay" and falls, it is still the fault of the supermarket if they knew about it yet did nothing about it, thinking "it's obvious enough, right?"

And the person who sees said bright pink puddle and still manages to injure him/herself should be paid by the supermarket?

If we didn't live in such a litigious society, medical bills might not be so expensive that you have to sue someone to pay them off. I can understand wanting to keep people/doctors/service providers honest, but it's excessive the stuff people will try to go to court for (most of the time knowing that there will just be a settlement anyway if they have a relatively decent case/lawyer).

[smelltheglove]

There is... but if they are responsible for it and if it's at a camp site, why was this not taken care of?

we have only the plaintiffs' claims that it was an "official" campsite

[Themius]

we have only the plaintiffs' claims that it was an "official" campsite

Then that information would come out in depositions and what not.

---------- Post added 2013-04-11 at 11:02 PM ----------

And the person who sees said bright pink puddle and still manages to injure him/herself should be paid by the supermarket?

If we didn't live in such a litigious society, medical bills might not be so expensive that you have to sue someone to pay them off. I can understand wanting to keep people/doctors/service providers honest, but it's excessive the stuff people will try to go to court for (most of the time knowing that there will just be a settlement anyway if they have a relatively decent case/lawyer).

If the supermarket was aware of the soap, yet did absolutely nothing about it, yes.