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

[Themius]

You obviously don't know what frivolous lawsuit means. Hint: it's not related to the severity of your injury.



Suing the government for it is.

If you cut off your own arm in public and then sued the police for not stopping you, the fact that it is a gruesome wound doesn't change how utterly frivolous the lawsuit would be.



You camp in an undeveloped area at your own risk.

You can't say it's frivolous if we don't know whether or not the camp site was official now can we? So saying it's frivolous and calling the family pathetic are both ignorant statements, literally ignorant since we simply don't know whether they were responsible for that area (in camping sense) that will come out as the case goes on. The point of this is to find out information, to find out who is responsible, and right now fingers point to them. If it is proven to be them and they should have cut it down then that means that it's not a frivolous lawsuit. People on this forum just love to jump on the "boooooo suing booo" band wagon. It's so tiresome.

Cutting off your own arm in public is not the same as staying in a camp area that looks official that's next to a dangerous tree. One you are self harming, the other you are staying in an area that should be tended by workers. It could be assumed that even though the tree may have looked suspect they had faith in the workers to the point they thought, "Should be alright."

Do we know that it's undeveloped? Wasn't there a stone circle? Find out if they were responsible first.

---------- Post added 2013-04-11 at 11:59 PM ----------

And this is why we have something call the legal system.

If it's found to be true, and a judge believes that the defendant is at fault, they'll either settle out of court, or be forced to pay damages.

This is how it should go, all this discussion just seems silly to me and the people berating the family without knowing whether they were indeed responsible for it and whether they were negligent in not dealing with it first, is a little ridiculous to me. The people on this forum just doesn't give a shit about law and process at times.

---------- Post added 2013-04-12 at 12:00 AM ----------

The whole forest is an apparent hazard. Next you'll tell us that the stone fire ring is an apparent hazard because irresponsible campers could start a fire there and accidentally burn themselves!

Starting a fire and burning yourself = you started the fire and burnt yourself.

Being next to a tree that should have been removed by workers = the workers were negligent in not removing it.

Please come up with analogies that are close.

---------- Post added 2013-04-12 at 12:02 AM ----------

At a remote campsite. Travel to the North Woods and we'll show you the definition.

Only thing I care about is whether or not it was in an area where the tree should have been removed but wasn't. If it was, then okay, if it wasn't, then okay. I just don't like seeing such negativity when we have this lack of information.

[Rukentuts]

Only thing I care about is whether or not it was in an area where the tree should have been removed but wasn't. If it was, then okay, if it wasn't, then okay. I just don't like seeing such negativity when we have this lack of information.

It's outrageous "demands" like a surplus of $1M judgment that spur this negativity, as well as increase costs for the rest of us.

Look what it did to malpractice insurance, and the consequences of that.

[Themius]

It's outrageous "demands" like a surplus of $1M judgment that spur this negativity, as well as increase costs for the rest of us.

Look what it did to malpractice insurance, and the consequences of that.

Accidents like these are very costly... easily in the hundred of thousands for multiple days in hospital plus the helicopter ride.

The real question is. If the USFS put a fire ring there and knew people camped there.

[Seranthor]

Accidents like these are very costly... easily in the hundred of thousands for multiple days in hospital plus the helicopter ride.

The real question is. If the USFS put a fire ring there and knew people camped there.

The 'real' question for me is IF the family can claim that the tree was KNOWINGLY unsafe and should have been removed then why in the holy hell did they camp near it? Think about it Do you willingly jump off a bridge and then sue when you get hurt and say, 'Shit, there should have been a sign there that said 'Dont Jump, injury or death might occur'.

Personal Responsibility is dead, its been replaced by a litigiously malevolent society.

[Fortera]

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

I agree. The tree was near an area where people frequently walked and had been around for years. They knew it was dead and didn't do anything about it. Anyone who lives near trees understands that a large, dead tree is a hazard waiting to happen. It can destroy homes, other property and injure or kill people or animals. If a tree is dead and has been around for a long time without being removed, it's going to fall. When it does, there is a good chance someone or something is going to be what it lands on. They should have taken care of it. A tree is heavy. It might not seem like it, but when they fall with all their weight and the speed with which they come down, they hit like a boulder. It sounds like a gun being fired and it has devastating power.

Most people in charge of outdoors areas like parks don't really give a shit about them. For example, at Frank Liske park here in Concord NC, there is a lake with a small pier. There are geese in the park. They shit all over this pier. The park took ALL... WINTER... to clean it. So, all winter, the entire pier was black as night coated in goose droppings and the entire area smelled like old grape juice and fart. Yeah, I can tell you precisely what goose shit smells like because of their neglect. That's just one aspect of their lack of concern for the park. I've seen it everywhere I go. Trash cans overloading, trees about to tip over from old age or insect damage, animal poop on walkways, vending machines almost completely empty... The list goes on. So, I can see why they let a dead tree remain in that park for that long -


They don't care until they are being forced to by the courts.

[Themius]

The 'real' question for me is IF the family can claim that the tree was KNOWINGLY unsafe and should have been removed then why in the holy hell did they camp near it? Think about it Do you willingly jump off a bridge and then sue when you get hurt and say, 'Shit, there should have been a sign there that said 'Dont Jump, injury or death might occur'.

Personal Responsibility is dead, its been replaced by a litigiously malevolent society.

Is it not the responsibility of them to remove a dangerous tree if they know people camp in that area? If they indeed added fire rings because they knew people camped there wouldn't that point to them being responsible for it? It's not just a random tree if it's an area they knew people camped at and prepared it so, barring taking down the tree. Jumping off bridge = you're trying to kill yourself or just being risky. No one else is responsible for that. This is not like that...

[Rodna]

You can't say it's frivolous if we don't know whether or not the camp site was official now can we?

Yes we can, because it's clearly not a developed campsite. I don't know why you keep talking about "official" or what the hell you think that means.

literally ignorant since we simply don't know whether they were responsible for that area

You mean you don't know.

Cutting off your own arm in public is not the same as staying in a camp area that looks official that's next to a dangerous tree.

Totally missing the point there. The point is that its frivolous regardless of the degree of injury - CONTRARY TO YOUR RETARDED CLAIMS.

But yes, it's not the same. Cutting off your own arm is actively harming yourself. So what they did is more like sprinting into the traffic without looking and suing a driver for not being able to brake in time.

the other you are staying in an area that should be tended by workers

Show me the evidence that it's supposed to be "tended by workers".

Do we know that it's undeveloped? Wasn't there a stone circle?

That makes it "developed", how?

[Themius]

I agree. The tree was near an area where people frequently walked and had been around for years. They knew it was dead and didn't do anything about it. Anyone who lives near trees understands that a large, dead tree is a hazard waiting to happen. It can destroy homes, other property and injure or kill people or animals. If a tree is dead and has been around for a long time without being removed, it's going to fall. When it does, there is a good chance someone or something is going to be what it lands on. They should have taken care of it. A tree is heavy. It might not seem like it, but when they fall with all their weight and the speed with which they come down, they hit like a boulder. It sounds like a gun being fired and it has devastating power.

Most people in charge of outdoors areas like parks don't really give a shit about them. For example, at Frank Liske park here in Concord NC, there is a lake with a small pier. There are geese in the park. They shit all over this pier. The park took ALL... WINTER... to clean it. So, all winter, the entire pier was black as night coated in goose droppings and the entire area smelled like old grape juice and fart. Yeah, I can tell you precisely what goose shit smells like because of their neglect. That's just one aspect of their lack of concern for the park. I've seen it everywhere I go. Trash cans overloading, trees about to tip over from old age or insect damage, animal poop on walkways, vending machines almost completely empty... The list goes on. So, I can see why they let a dead tree remain in that park for that long -


They don't care until they are being forced to by the courts.

You know how people talk about victim blaming in rape? This forum has plenty of just victim (regardless of type) blaming.

[endersblade]

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

Hit the nail on the head.

Sounds to me like they already knew it was a hazard, but let their kid play around it anyway, probably hoping for this exact outcome.

[LeginNoslen]

Has anyone really been
far as decided to use



even go want to do
look more like?

[Themius]

Yes we can, because it's clearly not a developed campsite. I don't know why you keep talking about "official" or what the hell you think that means.


You mean you don't know.


Totally missing the point there. The point is that its frivolous regardless of the degree of injury - CONTRARY TO YOUR RETARDED CLAIMS.

But yes, it's not the same. Cutting off your own arm is actively harming yourself. So what they did is more like sprinting into the traffic without looking and suing a driver for not being able to brake in time.


Show me the evidence that it's supposed to be "tended by workers".


That makes it "developed", how?

Right so I guess you spoke to the USFS or they made an official statement, otherwise YOU do not know either.

A frequented area with a dead tree that has many walkers and campers (hence them putting in a fire ring) why would they not take down the tree since it was dead it could have fallen on a person walking by and kill them. It's happened in central park (due to storms) quite a few times.

Show me evidence that it's not suppose to be tended by workers. I am saying we really are not 100% sure, but that'll come out in the case. You are speaking in absolutes you know jack shit about. What we do know is that there was a dead tree. A dead tree in an area people camped, and an area suspected to be prepped by them for campers, yet the tree remained. I mean removing a tree is pretty expensive work.

---------- Post added 2013-04-12 at 12:28 AM ----------

Hit the nail on the head.

Sounds to me like they already knew it was a hazard, but let their kid play around it anyway, probably hoping for this exact outcome.

So every camper went there hoping to almost die so they could sue.

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,

It was 48 feet within a service road and allowed to remain dead for years that screams neglect. If this wasn't a camping area why did they put in a fire ring and why were campers allowed to camp there at all? Why was the area not quarantined off since there was apparently a hazard standing by for years? It just says lack of care and neglect, that is all.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

If the family knew the tree looked dead then there's a lack of personal responsibility.

[Rodna]

Right so I guess you spoke to the USFS or they made an official statement, otherwise YOU do not know either.

It's amazing what rudimentary reading comprehension can do.

A frequented area

You made that up.

many walkers and campers

You made that up.

why would they not take down the tree since it was dead it could have fallen on a person walking by and kill them.

So you want the government to take down every dead tree in the forest? Should the government also put giant airbags under drops because people "could have" fallen down it? Should the government kill all bears and predatory wildlife in a forest because they "could have" harm a visitor? Should the government prepare stored caches of emergency rations and water and compasses every few meters throughout the wilderness because people "could have" lost their way and starve to death?

It's happened in central park (due to storms) quite a few times.

Too bad they weren't camping in Central Park.

Show me evidence that it's not suppose to be tended by workers.

It is not a developed campsite.

You are speaking in absolutes you know jack shit about

Precisely what you are doing when you try to blame this on the government.

[Themius]

If the family knew the tree looked dead then there's a lack of personal responsibility.

The tree was apparently dead for years, and was also a camping area. They had a responsibility to remove it, yet didn't. If they didn't want people in that area then they also shouldn't have developed that area. Apparently:

the place along Squaw Creek where they were overnighting was, in fact, a developed campsite, according to the Forest Service's definition

If it's a developed area then they definitely should have removed the tree. It was 8 feet from a developed area (if the definition rings true) and 48 feet from a service road for years.

[Rodna]

It was 48 feet within a service road

In other words it is sufficiently far away that there is no appreciable reason why it'd harm someone on the road.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Then make a complaint on them ALSO on the family if they knew the tree was dead.

[Themius]

It's amazing what rudimentary reading comprehension can do.


You made that up.


You made that up.


So you want the government to take down every dead tree in the forest? Should the government also put giant airbags under drops because people "could have" fallen down it? Should the government kill all bears and predatory wildlife in a forest because they "could have" harm a visitor? Should the government prepare stored caches of emergency rations and water and compasses every few meters throughout the wilderness because people "could have" lost their way and starve to death?



Too bad they weren't camping in Central Park.


It is not a developed campsite.


Precisely what you are doing when you try to blame this on the government.

I said show me evidence it's not a developed camp site, simply stating it's not doesn't make you right suddenly, are you omnipotent? If the tree was by a developed area, with a fire ring and all, then yes the government had a duty to remove the tree. You don't leave a dead tree for years next to a camp area and a service road. That's neglectful.

I am trying to blame government? Actually most of my post have been saying 'if this is indeed true' 'if this is the case' because right now all I see is a whole bunch of people who are ready to just blame the family entirely and not make the claim against the government. What we do know is that there was a dead tree by a fire ring made of rocks by a service road, that remained there for years, dead, and they had knowledge that people camped there. That's all we know for certain.

---------- Post added 2013-04-12 at 12:39 AM ----------

In other words it is sufficiently far away that there is no appreciable reason why it'd harm someone on the road.

There are trees in that forest that reach 150 feet. This was reported as a "large tree"

EDIT:

Actually most of the trees reach 130-150 feet and a few of them 250 feet.

[Rodna]

I said show me evidence it's not a developed camp site

Nothing in the article describes a developed campsite. Further evidence is that they can't prove it's a developed campsite and has to make an argument based on "even if it isn't developed you should still do this".

Do you even know what a developed campsite is?

with a fire ring

Irrelevant. And actually a fire ring is what some dispersed campsites have.

Actually most of my post have been saying 'if this is indeed true' 'if this is the case'

Most of your posts involve premises that are outright wrong or made up, like the "many walkers and campers".

---------- Post added 2013-04-12 at 04:43 AM ----------

There are trees in that forest that reach 150 feet. This was reported as a "large tree"

You really think a tree can fall in a forest and then crush everything in its path to the ground up to 150 feet away?

Are you aware of what a forest is?

[Themius]

Nothing in the article describes a developed campsite. Further evidence is that they can't prove it's a developed campsite and has to make an argument based on "even if it isn't developed you should still do this".

Do you even know what a developed campsite is?


Irrelevant. And actually a fire ring is what some dispersed campsites have.


Most of your posts involve premises that are outright wrong or made up, like the "many walkers and campers".

There were other campers and the they knew other people camped there, which is why it may have been in the state it was.

The camp site is deemed developed according to the guidelines set by the the forest services.

Do you know how this particular tree was placed? Are you saying this tree could only travel a small distance? If it was 250 feet tall for instance you're saying it's not going to travel but 20-30 feet? What are you basing this off?

[Polarthief]

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

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

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

Genius.

Both of the bottom comments can be answered by the first.

Money

I'm willing to bet they WANTED this to happen. You don't let your kid play near a dangerous tree.

Ffs, this is why we can't progress as a society.