|
Restricted Access to the Lava Flow
|
03-02-2008, 02:57 PM
Lava viewing should be left open to anyone. People will get themselves lost and/or hurt from time to time.
The county should simply charge people for expenses incured for search, rescue and first aid.
03-02-2008, 04:08 PM
quote: How true. KathyH and I both post on one of the national travel forum sites. It's scary how the average tourist think of a trip to Hawaii. "Anything goes" as far as they are concerned. (Except a few.) Aloha, John S. Rabi ABR,CM,CRB,FHS,PB,RB http://www.JohnRabi.com Typically Tropical Properties "The Next Level of Service!"
03-02-2008, 05:17 PM
quote: There you go Glen! Personal responsibility! Exactly!
03-02-2008, 09:17 PM
I feel all people tourist or local should be free to see the lava flow.
I see way too much restriction in America these days. Restrictions on things that in the past were not restricted. All in the name of saftey or libility? We talk about how the good ole days are gone and wish they were back. Education is the key especially about water danger.
03-03-2008, 03:07 AM
That was Greg that advocated that everyone be able to see this (people always call me Greg --a name I like), but I do agree with him. However, the reality is that the County must, at the very least, advise people of the danger. The sign that Jerry talked about would be a start. A public announcement that you go at your own risk would be another.
There is this sort of feeling that this is Casper-the-Friendly-Volcano. I thought that too until I went up to Chain of Craters road and saw, uh, the craters. I drank a lot when I got back to the vacation rental after that excursion.
03-03-2008, 05:09 AM
When the Bear and I made our excursion to the County side of the lava flow, we had read the HVNP guidelines for volcano hiking. So we had hiking shoes, lots of water, flashlights, hazard awareness self-briefing, etc. Many on the trail did not, but managed to survive without anything worse than scraped ankles that we noticed. The lackadaisical supervision of the whole thing by the County "safety" personnel (I think they were actually road workers?) caused Bear to remark, "At least one thing here is the same as back in Georgia. It takes four County workers to do what one or two should be able to do."
But seriously, how would the County be liable for stupid people doing stupid things on what I believe was either private or state property? (And how could they charge admission to it for that matter? Having to stop and pay did cause at least some of the visitors to look at the safety poster, though.) Other than the cost of rescuing and/or treating the stray idiot, the liability exposure should be minimal. As noted above, the cost of rescue/treatment should be paid by those who violated the posted guidelines. Glen, I know you are not licensed to practice law in Hawaii, but do you know how this works? "At your own risk" is a concept I can live with, especially if the risks are posted and made known to a reasonable extent. If you are clueless enough to think that visiting an active lava flow is risk free, there is always that Darwinian thing about leaving the gene pool. Cheers, Jerry
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:
03-03-2008, 07:05 AM
Skateboarders cannot sue the county if they hurt themselves at the new skate park....Even though it's a county facility.
Halona Blowhole Lawsuit David Dick, her ex-husband, filed a lawsuit in Circuit Court in Honolulu Aug. 9 against the city and the state. He is seeking unspecified damages due to alleged negligence over the failure to post warning signs from Sandy Beach. He said he isn't sure if a steel grate is the right solution. ------------- Today in History: Daisy, the Honolulu Zoo's African elephant tramples her keeper to death seemingly becoming tempermental after 17 years in Hawai'i, 1933. She is immediately killed by police officers and her body then towed out to sea and left behind for sharks.
03-03-2008, 07:40 AM
To clarify: According to what was written in the newspaper there is no intent to permanently stop people from viewing lava on county land. It is just that at the moment the lava is pooling uphill and has not created a stable path to the ocean. So, since the lava path is unpredictable, they decided to stop access until the lava settles into a path. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
