03-03-2008, 06:49 AM
Well, I certainly cannot speak on this subject for Hawai’i and am not an expert in this area in California, but generally, governmental entities are provided immunity from claims for liability for injury from natural conditions, even dangerous ones. However, that immunity may be lost under certain circumstances. If a governmental entity –say a county—voluntarily provides some sort of protective service which induces a citizen to rely on the proper performance of that service, the County may have exposure. They would also have exposure if they increased the risk in some way.
For example, if the County posts a sign that says “Follow the trail signs! Be safe!” and a sign that says “Trail” is placed over a path that actually leads to a three hundred foot drop off of a waterfall, there could be some exposure .
Also, in your case, you had county workers who ostensibly were marking off the safe limits of the viewing area. People relied on this and went as far as they were allowed. However, the safety area was actually too close to the peril and the county workers were desultory in reacting to the changing peril. Such actions are inadvisable because viewers were acting in reliance on the implication that you would be safe behind the yellow caution tape.
I think that is different from the present situation. No one is charging admission (if someone charges you admission to a spectacle, you usually don’t think the spectacle will kill you). Harry Kim is screaming at the top of his lungs not to go see this, and the event is taking place on what I believe are private lands (not sure if they have been condemned, but I don’t think so). So, we have a dangerous natural condition on private property (except for the coastal plain) that the county is telling you not to go see because it is unsafe. Even if they were not telling you not to go there, in a similar situation in this state (CA) there would be no duty to warn you.
However, lawyers are creative and aggressive (that’s what people pay them for) and the county is merely being cautious here. There are many people in Mustang convertibles who have never imagined methane explosions in a vacation paradise.
I’m a libertarian in these matters (all Southerners are libertarians!) and I say let people go see the lava if they so desire, and let the spectator beware. It seems to me that if the county tells you this is dangerous, does nothing to encourage you to go (e.g., doesn’t charge admission), and doesn’t increase the risk in some way (e.g., by setting up a viewing stand on Prince Street in Royal Gardens or by putting up a sign that says “Lava escape route” which actually leads to the maws of hell), the exposure in a like jurisdiction in California would be virtually nil.
In the meantime I caution you:
For example, if the County posts a sign that says “Follow the trail signs! Be safe!” and a sign that says “Trail” is placed over a path that actually leads to a three hundred foot drop off of a waterfall, there could be some exposure .
Also, in your case, you had county workers who ostensibly were marking off the safe limits of the viewing area. People relied on this and went as far as they were allowed. However, the safety area was actually too close to the peril and the county workers were desultory in reacting to the changing peril. Such actions are inadvisable because viewers were acting in reliance on the implication that you would be safe behind the yellow caution tape.
I think that is different from the present situation. No one is charging admission (if someone charges you admission to a spectacle, you usually don’t think the spectacle will kill you). Harry Kim is screaming at the top of his lungs not to go see this, and the event is taking place on what I believe are private lands (not sure if they have been condemned, but I don’t think so). So, we have a dangerous natural condition on private property (except for the coastal plain) that the county is telling you not to go see because it is unsafe. Even if they were not telling you not to go there, in a similar situation in this state (CA) there would be no duty to warn you.
However, lawyers are creative and aggressive (that’s what people pay them for) and the county is merely being cautious here. There are many people in Mustang convertibles who have never imagined methane explosions in a vacation paradise.
I’m a libertarian in these matters (all Southerners are libertarians!) and I say let people go see the lava if they so desire, and let the spectator beware. It seems to me that if the county tells you this is dangerous, does nothing to encourage you to go (e.g., doesn’t charge admission), and doesn’t increase the risk in some way (e.g., by setting up a viewing stand on Prince Street in Royal Gardens or by putting up a sign that says “Lava escape route” which actually leads to the maws of hell), the exposure in a like jurisdiction in California would be virtually nil.
In the meantime I caution you:
- Hot lava is hot and may burn your skin, hair and internal organs.
- Cold lava is sharp and may scrape your ankles.
- Lava hotter than a warm biscuit is unsafe to walk on
- If you live on a volcanic island in the middle of the ocean you may encounter volcanoes
- Lava is capable of flowing past yellow caution barriers.
- Lava may not obey stop signs as it proceeds through subdivisions.
- Always yield the right of way to lava