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

[zerocoolhack]

Themius how is it anyone's but the couples fault? What if it was a kid walking on a path and tripped and fell on a stick?

[Wildtree]

"Hey bob we have 5000 burn complaints because our lids come off so easily and we keep our coffee ungodly hot, should we do something about that?"
"Nah, why should we worry about causing thousands of burns even though it's an easy fix."

I have noticed that there's a weird tendency going on in the US...
On one hand, there's the part with all the frivolous law suits. Yet on the other hand, there's also a weird leaning towards irresponsible behavior.

Until 2 years ago, I lived at the property of a friend of mine. He has two houses on it, and I lived in one of them. Behind his house there was a HUGE tree. That thing was quite old, and about 70 ft tall. About 10 years ago, the tree got hit by lightning. That caused the base of the tree to split in the middle. The tree deteriorated over the years. Just walking by was a scary thing. The tree seemed to be healthy if you looked up to the limbs. But the base spoke another language. Due to it's size the tree - if it falls - was capable to hit either one of 4 different houses. My friends, the one I lived in, and 2 neighbors houses. I was on my friends case for 3 years to do something.
He didn't do anything, other than getting an estimate for a removal. $1500.00... He didn't wanna pay for it. He said, he is just going to wait til it comes down. In that case his insurance will cover most of the expenses. Needless to say, that damn thing did come down, one day during a decent storm. The miracle was, that the tree fell exactly into the narrow spot that builds the driveway. Only some parts caused damage to his roof. It did however tear down all the power and phone lines that ran under the tree. The whole block was out of power on our side of the street. The power company worked over 6 hours to get it fixed, the phone companies also had a few hours. And my friend? He didn't pay a fucking cent. It was an act of God, that this tree came down.
Way to waste tax payer money. Way to put people's lives in danger...
To me it was an act of an asshole that this tree didn't get cut down and prevent it from falling...

So no, I am not buying into that "act of God / act of nature" argument that easy....

[Eda]

The camp site was known by the park services (Unless I've read the first post wrong). It's their responsibility to ensure the safety of a public park and its areas frequented by visitors.

Before my words are taken out of context, no, I don't expect them to know the whole damn forest and label every tree. However considering how close the tree was to the camp site, action was clearly needed.

Edit: I understand the parents are at fault for not taking proper care of the child, however, the parents are not professionals hired to care for the park and know a dead tree to a tree rotten on the inside. We don't know those exact details.

[jbombard]

The camp site was known by the park services (Unless I've read the first post wrong). It's their responsibility to ensure the safety of a public park and it's areas frequented by visitors.

Before my words are taken out of context, no, I don't expect them to know the whole damn forest and label every tree. However considering how close the tree was to the camp site, action was clearly needed.

The argument is that it was clearly dead and obviously dangerous. Yet they decided to camp there knowingly? Or did they not notice it? If they did not notice it, then you have to ask, if people camping right by it don't notice it, how can you expect the park to?

[De Lupe]

All was taught to you from your parents and general surrounding. I'm in a similar case as you since I live in the woods myself but chances are these people are from a city etc. and the parents where negligent so the kid had know idea seeing as how he is 6.

Okay, fine, the kid gets a free pass. Sucks to be him though with such negligent parents that don't teach basic common sense.

[Deleted]

Kinda agree with this... "don't assume it's greed motivating this family. If they didn't have insurance, this may be their only hope of paying the kid's medical bills."

I highly doubt they will get rich from that lawsuit, but they may get a settlement.

I think a) a public campsite should not have a large dead tree and b) the family should not have gone near the dead tree. Not clearly either party's fault, maybe it could have been prevented, but I don't think the family should bear the financial burden because of it.

[Themius]

*Sigh* Guess I'm not leaving...

A man gets killed by a meteorite while minding his own business. Does the family have a legitimate case against NASA for not warning them about it?

No. Freak accidents happen. That's life. Shit happens.

There are way too many lawsuits over stupid things that are of no fault of a person and are just freak accidents, or worse, it was a self-imposed problem and they refuse to admit it.

You want to know a legitimate lawsuit? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHSte37BrOs

Ignoring Judge Judy, an Ebay scammer got caught and the scammed person has a legitimate case against her.
Tree injures kid in the forest? Not even worth getting on the TV, let alone a courthouse.

This is about the dumbest analogy you could come up with, and why did you avoid answering the question?

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

Kinda agree with this... "don't assume it's greed motivating this family. If they didn't have insurance, this may be their only hope of paying the kid's medical bills."

I highly doubt they will get rich from that lawsuit, but they may get a settlement.

I think a) a public campsite should not have a large dead tree and b) the family should not have gone near the dead tree. Not clearly either party's fault, maybe it could have been prevented, but I don't think the family should bear the financial burden because of it.

Seriously dead tree that's years old near a service road and an alleged camp site. That's just very neglectful.

[Wildtree]

Okay, fine, the kid gets a free pass. Sucks to be him though with such negligent parents that don't teach basic common sense.

Are you a parent?

Why I ask is... because I highly doubt that.... you sound like you are talking out of your ass....
If you were a parent you would know that when you got a 6 yrs old kid, in the middle of a forest, that kid goes and plays, and explores.
What you wanna do? Tie it to the damn car? It's a damn kiddo, it wants to play and it should play. That's the whole damn reason why you went to the camping ground, That's common sense..
You tell your kid to watch it's steps, to watch out for not getting away too far and out of eye sight. But you let it be itself.

[De Lupe]

This is about the dumbest analogy you could come up with, and why did you avoid answering the question?

No, it is not a legitimate lawsuit.

Are you a parent?

Oldest of six kids. When mom/dad went to work, I became both parents. Add in the three step siblings I inherited when my dad re-married, and I have participated in raising 8 kids. Vowed never to have children simply because I ain't raising any more kids.

I know what you're about to say too. "Kids will be kids", "Kids don't listen", "Kids do stupid things" And you know what, you're right. Doesn't make them less stupid for doing it. Siblings did stupid things, I called them dumbasses for doing the stupid things. If they came in injured, provided it wasn't serious, I laughed my ass off at them for doing it, and told them to go cry to someone else because I warned them and they didn't listen.

[Deleted]

Seriously dead tree that's years old near a service road and an alleged camp site. That's just very neglectful.

Atleast you changed you stance from "It is a developed campsite" to "They call it a developed campsite" important fact that you should remember USFS said that it was not developed and you should believe them more then apparant holiday campers.(very important not to take some things out of context)

[Deleted]

Trees fall down sometimes, no suit! I hope they lose the suit to teach them a lesson. Oh the human stupidity.

[dokilar]

and here i was thinking we were going to get into a debate about the actual question in the title.

[Fortera]

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

You're being difficult for the sake of being difficult. How tall are trees in your general area that you think 48 ft isn't enough room for, when the tree falls, it to hit someone or something around that distance? Trees are tall. They fall down, and when they do, they don't just crush things around their base. They have their entire length with which to do damage. That's however many ft tall they are. 48 ft is not that much space and a tree can easily cover most of that. So you're basically saying people should have gone to great lengths to not only notice and examine the trees in the park to make sure they aren't dead but know how tall they are to avoid them if they happen to fall?

Read. Think. Post!

[Wildtree]

Oldest of six kids. When mom/dad went to work, I became both parents. Add in the three step siblings I inherited when my dad re-married, and I have participated in raising 8 kids. Vowed never to have children simply because I ain't raising any more kids.

I know what you're about to say too. "Kids will be kids", "Kids don't listen", "Kids do stupid things" And you know what, you're right. Doesn't make them less stupid for doing it. Siblings did stupid things, I called them dumbasses for doing the stupid things. If they came in injured, provided it wasn't serious, I laughed my ass off at them for doing it, and told them to go cry to someone else because I warned them and they didn't listen.

I've been on both sides of the aisle....
On yours, as raising / helping raising my siblings. I'm the oldest with my sis 8 yrs younger and my brother 10 yrs younger. I've had my share on that end, and can relate. And I am a parent myself. I am through with that part too. Kiddo is an adult, and takes care of himself.
I have to say that it is a difference between raising and babysitting siblings and raising ones own child. The awareness level is a lot higher. At least for me it was.
I wouldn't, and never have turned my eye away from my kid. But there's a fine line of being responsible and over protective. The latter is definitely a horrible thing.
My own parents were over protective, and I hate em for that part until I fall into the box. They've taken away so much from the things I wanted to do, and couldn't.
I made sure my child won't suffer such things. He had all the freedom he wanted. And I've let him discover and explore. No lesson is better than learning from our own mistakes.
So in the case at hand. I can see how my kid would have strolled through the woods. If there was a bad tree, I would have told him to stay away, and definitely not climb up. But that would have been all. Bad trees are all over almost every forest. They stand there for years, often for decades. I really cannot see neglect on the parents end. Not from that tidbit of situation report from that article. That would require more information for such judgement to be made.

---------- Post added 2013-04-12 at 02:03 AM ----------

You're being difficult for the sake of being difficult. How tall are trees in your general area that you think 48 ft isn't enough room for, when the tree falls, it to hit someone or something around that distance? Trees are tall. They fall down, and when they do, they don't just crush things around their base. They have their entire length with which to do damage. That's however many ft tall they are. 48 ft is not that much space and a tree can easily cover most of that. So you're basically saying people should have gone to great lengths to not only notice and examine the trees in the park to make sure they aren't dead but know how tall they are to avoid them if they happen to fall?

Read. Think. Post!

A 48 ft tree which is about 8 ft from the fire place of the camp site, is definitely too close to the fire place. There's something strange. A distance of 8 ft can be easily be bridged by fire during wind gusts. And in the summer, it wouldn't really matter too much whether the tree is dead or healthy. Both could catch fire.
I don't doubt that the tree was 48 ft. But then, the size of the tree doesn't really matter when it comes to a fire hazard.

[Seranthor]

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...

Things that are not yet known as far as I can see.
1. Was it in fact known to the USFS that the tree was dead?
2. Was it in fact the USFS that created that campsite?

Things that ARE already known.
1. The family KNEW the tree was dead
2. The family remained to camp in the immediate area.

I submit that KNOWING the tree was dead and WILLINGLY remaining to camp then they accepted the risk.

[Tokru]

What they are doning next? Sueing the coast guard because someone hurt his feed on a little sharp rock while swimming?

[Hyve]

Money is tight these days, people will do whatever they can to get their hands on a cash lump sum that would clear their debts, and set them up for a few years.

It isn't the fault of anyone that this happened, these things happen and the kid was unlucky.

[Powerogue]

Unless they had a giant industrial fan there that blew over the tree, it's the wind's fault.

[Nyanmaru]

Things that are not yet known as far as I can see.
1. Was it in fact known to the USFS that the tree was dead?
2. Was it in fact the USFS that created that campsite?

Things that ARE already known.
1. The family KNEW the tree was dead
2. The family remained to camp in the immediate area.

I submit that KNOWING the tree was dead and WILLINGLY remaining to camp then they accepted the risk.

Exactly. If it was an official camp site created and maintained by the USFS they should have kept it safe. (or put up a sign that it's dangerous *cough* I know you like warning signs in the US *wink*)
But there's also the families negligence...

[Bolson13]

I think the forest service should at least keep the common and "approved" campground safe, which means remove dead trees. Families and people who aren't woodsmen would go to these places so it is a key thing for them.

So make sure there is no nests of snakes nearby, remove dead trees, remove dead wood and shrubbery so it doesn't go up in flames that easily in the summer. This is part of the job of the forest service I assume. So imo there is something to say for it. But of course accidents happen, though I think every parent would freak out if it happened to them. Perhaps once it has settled a little, they will drop it and see it in that light. More then a million dollars is obviously too much (unless the hospital bill is more then 1 million but I doubt that).


Obviously if it is away from the campground, then it is a different story.