Mount Lindsey Closure

[Chicago Transplant]

Wasn't one of the deciding factors with Nelson's case that the landowner had a photo of the hole that caused his crash? Therefore there was proof they knew of that specific hazard and didn't mark it?

Whether the CRUS is "working" or not is certainly a matter of opinion, but I am on the side that thinks it is not given that landowners are closing once open access over that case. There clearly needs to be some change in the language to satisfy them. I can also see where Nelson is an outlier because there was proof it was as known hazard, but what happens when someone gets hurt on the Declibron trail and there was a picture of the hazard from a 14ers.com trip report a few days before the accident? Will some lawyer jump on that and say the owner should have known? That they should be checking 14ers.com and social media for pictures of hazards on their property and marking and rectifying them?

I say trespass the hell out of it and hope people get arrested by the thousands each summer and then maybe the senators will realize that a $2500 donation is small potatoes to thousands of angry voters getting arrested every year who won't vote for you.

FYI - I live in Roberts district, he will be hearing from me once I craft how I want to respond.

[John Landers]

John, Catslab? I recall helping a climber off that rock around that time who had injuries like what you describe. My buddy and I got him back down the trail to the roadside, I think we stuffed him in a car and he went off to the hospital/ER. 10b route I think, leading on twin ropes. Was that you?

-Tom

Hi Tom, yes it was Catslab. Hopped out on my left leg with support / assistance from a climber in another party. Believe we were the only two climbing parties there at the time. I was climbing well that day until I wasn't. Thanks for the help.

[greenonion]

If you want to help us pave the way forward, you can start by emailing the three Senators on the committee who voted no and let them know you disagree, you are watching, and you hope they support these changes if and when they are re-introduced next year.

Or we could just hike wherever we want and use violence if someone tries to apprehend us. It's pretty clear that those in power don't give a damn about anything other than their re-election campaigns. Since they don't care what we think I don't know that we should care what they think.

Advocating violence. Really?

[JROSKA]

Or we could just hike wherever we want and use violence if someone tries to apprehend us. It's pretty clear that those in power don't give a damn about anything other than their re-election campaigns. Since they don't care what we think I don't know that we should care what they think.

Advocating violence. Really?

Yeah I’m no legal expert but I do know that anyone who carries a gun onto private property and causes harm to a landowner while trespassing on their property will be going away for a long, long, time. Objection sustained. Jury, please strike the comment advocating violence from the record.

[amderr22]

Wasn't one of the deciding factors with Nelson's case that the landowner had a photo of the hole that caused his crash? Therefore there was proof they knew of that specific hazard and didn't mark it?

Whether the CRUS is "working" or not is certainly a matter of opinion, but I am on the side that thinks it is not given that landowners are closing once open access over that case. There clearly needs to be some change in the language to satisfy them. I can also see where Nelson is an outlier because there was proof it was as known hazard, but what happens when someone gets hurt on the Declibron trail and there was a picture of the hazard from a 14ers.com trip report a few days before the accident? Will some lawyer jump on that and say the owner should have known? That they should be checking 14ers.com and social media for pictures of hazards on their property and marking and rectifying them?

I say trespass the hell out of it and hope people get arrested by the thousands each summer and then maybe the senators will realize that a $2500 donation is small potatoes to thousands of angry voters getting arrested every year who won't vote for you.

FYI - I live in Roberts district, he will be hearing from me once I craft how I want to respond.

Thanks for reaching out! His constituents and those of the other Committee members have the most influence on this issue, for obvious reasons - much appreciated.

This came up during the hearing - if there are online pictures or posts mentioning a washed-out section of trail or an area with loose rocks - does that make the condition 'known?' If a trail you put These questions all demonstrate the crux of the problem: uncertainty. For a law to incentivize access by providing immunity, it has to be ironclad. Owners get nothing by providing access - and often have to purchase liability insurance, even with the CRUS. So if there's any uncertainty in the law, it creates a huge obstacle to gaining access. For example, the CRUS requires you to use an affirmative defense - you can't just automatically get lawsuits thrown out. You have to hire an attorney, go to court, and say you are invoking the CRUS - and then there is a hearing to determine whether or not it applies.

In other words - there are now serious, open legal questions that can only be answered by a Judge once a landowner has already been sued. I think it's absurd to think most landowners would be okay gambling with that arrangement. If the law does not provide obvious and ironclad protection, it cannot provide the protection necessary to convince landowners to allow access.

Ironically, the short-term outcome of maintaining the status quo will likely be that more 14ers close, and people like them anyway - but legally as trespassers, they'll have no recourse to sue in almost all circumstances (short of a landowner shooting them). So pragmatically, this will leave thousands of hikers without any kind of protection - even in negligent situations. So while the Trial Lawyers tried to demonstrate that the status quo protects hikers - it will more likely mean hikers who trespass will be even less protected than if SB 103 had passed.

Here's to hoping we have more success in 2024!

[Jorts]

Ironically, the short-term outcome of maintaining the status quo will likely be that more 14ers close, and people like them anyway - but legally as trespassers, they'll have no recourse to sue in almost all circumstances (short of a landowner shooting them). So pragmatically, this will leave thousands of hikers without any kind of protection - even in negligent situations. So while the Trial Lawyers tried to demonstrate that the status quo protects hikers - it will more likely mean hikers who trespass will be even less protected than if SB 103 had passed.

I might be in the minority but I'm actually okay with this. I have trouble imagining a bonafide negligent situation on something like Lindsey. Maybe the landowner dumping undetonated land mines along the route? Or hazardous waste that's carcinogenic? Or an open mine shaft? Or some psycho shooting me?

Frankly anything that puts the onus on hikers for personal responsibility and takes it off landowners seems reasonable. I don't think they should need to be paranoid about negligence for allowing us to freely tramp across their land unhindered. I almost see it as analogous to the good samaritan law that protects BLS medical providers in emergencies.

But if I'm reading between the lines correctly, you're suggesting that the No Trespassing signs on Lindsey have less to do with Trinchera Blanca not wanting hikers on their land and more to do with protecting themselves from liability should hikers find themselves injured on their property? Is this reasonable paraphrasing?

[Chicago Transplant]

Ironically, the short-term outcome of maintaining the status quo will likely be that more 14ers close, and people like them anyway - but legally as trespassers, they'll have no recourse to sue in almost all circumstances (short of a landowner shooting them). So pragmatically, this will leave thousands of hikers without any kind of protection - even in negligent situations. So while the Trial Lawyers tried to demonstrate that the status quo protects hikers - it will more likely mean hikers who trespass will be even less protected than if SB 103 had passed.

I might be in the minority but I'm actually okay with this. I have trouble imagining a bonafide negligent situation on something like Lindsey. Maybe the landowner dumping undetonated land mines along the route? Or hazardous waste that's carcinogenic? Or an open mine shaft? Or some psycho shooting me?

Frankly anything that puts the onus on hikers for personal responsibility and takes it off landowners seems reasonable. I don't think they should need to be paranoid about negligence for allowing us to freely tramp across their land unhindered. I almost see it as analogous to the good samaritan law that protects BLS medical providers in emergencies.

But if I'm reading between the lines correctly, you're suggesting that the No Trespassing signs on Lindsey have less to do with Trinchera Blanca not wanting hikers on their land and more to do with protecting themselves from liability should hikers find themselves injured on their property? Is this reasonable paraphrasing?

Yeah I agree, if I get hurt out in the wild on my hiking, skiing, rock climbing, biking etc endeavors its not the land owner's fault (whether private or on federal land). My safety is on me. I think it should be incredibly difficult - nearly impossible actually - to sue for injuring yourself in these activities. I thought that was kind of the point of SB 103, to make it harder to sue?

As far as the No Trespassing signs, that was my take as well, it was owner CYA. I don't think anyone is up there patrolling anything with regards to Mt Lindsey (some places do, Bar NI ranch, Boulder watershed for example).

[12ersRule]

If you want to help us pave the way forward, you can start by emailing the three Senators on the committee who voted no and let them know you disagree, you are watching, and you hope they support these changes if and when they are re-introduced next year.

Or we could just hike wherever we want and use violence if someone tries to apprehend us. It's pretty clear that those in power don't give a damn about anything other than their re-election campaigns. Since they don't care what we think I don't know that we should care what they think.

Happy 50 years to "Dark Side of the Moon". It's called "Us AND Them", ptsdfsfsreredrtete0sflertegu, not 'Us Against Them".


Listen to this

[dwoodward13]

Ironically, the short-term outcome of maintaining the status quo will likely be that more 14ers close, and people like them anyway - but legally as trespassers, they'll have no recourse to sue in almost all circumstances (short of a landowner shooting them). So pragmatically, this will leave thousands of hikers without any kind of protection - even in negligent situations. So while the Trial Lawyers tried to demonstrate that the status quo protects hikers - it will more likely mean hikers who trespass will be even less protected than if SB 103 had passed.

I might be in the minority but I'm actually okay with this. I have trouble imagining a bonafide negligent situation on something like Lindsey. Maybe the landowner dumping undetonated land mines along the route? Or hazardous waste that's carcinogenic? Or an open mine shaft? Or some psycho shooting me?

Frankly anything that puts the onus on hikers for personal responsibility and takes it off landowners seems reasonable. I don't think they should need to be paranoid about negligence for allowing us to freely tramp across their land unhindered. I almost see it as analogous to the good samaritan law that protects BLS medical providers in emergencies.

But if I'm reading between the lines correctly, you're suggesting that the No Trespassing signs on Lindsey have less to do with Trinchera Blanca not wanting hikers on their land and more to do with protecting themselves from liability should hikers find themselves injured on their property? Is this reasonable paraphrasing?

The arguments made by the opponents of the SB23-103 was that recreators do need protection, and that passing the bill would weaken protection for hikers or bikers. Amderr is just pointing out the irony the in the practical sense. Exactly what the opponents of the bill didn't want to have happen (weaker protections for recreators) will in fact be the case on peaks like Lindsey because the no trespassing signs will stay up and there will be no protections for said recreators who ignore them.

[Jorts]

The arguments made by the opponents of the SB23-103 was that recreators do need protection, and that passing the bill would weaken protection for hikers or bikers. Amderr is just pointing out the irony the in the practical sense. Exactly what the opponents of the bill didn't want to have happen (weaker protections for recreators) will in fact be the case on peaks like Lindsey because the no trespassing signs will stay up and there will be no protections for said recreators who ignore them.

Oh yeah, I got the irony. Now I have to step over CYA signs pocking the landscape to do my thing.

It's also ironic that if the ranch ever explicitly said to the community, "the signs are just there so you don't sue us, it's cool if you go up," then the legal protection afforded by the no trespassing signs would be nullified. 1st rule of Fight Club.

Essentially nothing has changed... but the presence of the nugatory signage.

[dwoodward13]

The arguments made by the opponents of the SB23-103 was that recreators do need protection, and that passing the bill would weaken protection for hikers or bikers. Amderr is just pointing out the irony the in the practical sense. Exactly what the opponents of the bill didn't want to have happen (weaker protections for recreators) will in fact be the case on peaks like Lindsey because the no trespassing signs will stay up and there will be no protections for said recreators who ignore them.

Oh yeah, I got the irony. Now I have to step over CYA signs pocking the landscape to do my thing.

It's also ironic that if the ranch ever explicitly said to the community, "the signs are just there so you don't sue us, it's cool if you go up," then the legal protection afforded by the no trespassing signs would be nullified. 1st rule of Fight Club.

Essentially nothing has changed... but the presence of the nugatory signage.

And a some portion (a majority?) of the public will see those signs and turn around (or not attempt in the first place). The opposite of what the statue is intended to do, but here we are.

[GuiGirard]

for years, you had to sign and carry a waiver with you to "hike" the summit of Black Mountain, KY's high point (ironic since the "hike" is really just a mile-long road walk). there's no significant danger but since the propery used to be owned by a coal mining company, i guess they were worried maybe a company vehicle would hit somebody walking that road or something and they'd get sued. the state eventually took ownership of the land and now the waiver is no longer needed.
but i wonder why Lindsey or other summit property owners couldn't implement something like that. different state, different laws, i know, but surely some lawyer could craft a simple waiver agreement people could download and fill out that would absolve the property owner of all liability for any injury or accident, and protect the landowner from any legal responsibility.

The owners have considered using liability waivers - but who would print them out and ensure everyone has one? Who enforces the rule and forcibly removes or blocks people who don't want to sign one? Any liability waiver program for a 14er or similarly busy trail would require staff to check that visitors have waivers 24/7 - which would cost thousands of dollars each year. If the owner charged an entrance fee to pay for that, they lose recreational use statute protection. So they decided it wasn't a realistic solution.

For small-scale situations where only a few hikers or climbers visit an area, a waiver works, but not on peaks with tens of thousands of annual visitors.

How would a massive sign posted right along the trail (maybe two signs, one on each sign of the trail) with the liability print and the mention that once the hiker crosses the line between the two signs, they accept the liability waiver legibly printed on the sign and all its implications, legally differ from handing out a signed piece of paper to a representative of the landowner?
Isn't that what we ALL do when we sign up on-line for a race such as a bike or running race, or when purchase ski passes? Who even reads these waivers in full? We all check the box electronically and call it a day and it appears to keep all parties happy.

I'm not in favor of highway-grade-size signs up mountains but if this can help keep a peak open, then sure enough I'm ok with it...