Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

[TowerTalk] Fwd: anti-climb, litigation, attractive nuisance

To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fwd: anti-climb, litigation, attractive nuisance
From: Hans Hammarquist via TowerTalk <towertalk@contesting.com>
Reply-to: Hans Hammarquist <hanslg@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 15:23:18 -0500
List-post: <towertalk@contesting.com">mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
Dear Fellow Radio Hams

After some InterNet research I have found the following, not to be taken as 
set-in-stone but more as a guideline what we can do to take reasonable measures 
to protect ourself from lawsuits. Needless to say anybody can sue but we can 
take measure to reduce the possibility of having to fork out large amount of 
compensations.

Our towers are not the only thing that can be considered an Attractive Nuance. 
There are 10 different thing commonly are considered Attractive Nuance. They 
are:

1. Railroads: I don't expect us to have a railroad in our back yard but if you 
do, watch out.

2. Swimming pools: A lot of us have swimming pools. There are probably local 
ordinances regulating this. If not, you still should pay attention.

3. Farm Equipment: I think we all at one time seen a piece of farm equipment 
seemingly unguarded of a farm field. There are steps you should take to protect 
yourself.

4. Construction Sites:We all have had a construction site at some point. When 
we have been in the process of installing a tower we have a construction site. 
We have material, open holes and other things that can be dangerous.

5. Power Lines and Towers: This is what I believe would be the category that 
closest pertain to us.

6. Fountains & Ponds: Some of us have them and they can be just as dangerous as 
the swimming pool.

7. Abandoned Cars: I don't know what make an abandoned car more dangerous than 
any other parked car but apparently the courts differentiate between them.

8. Old Appliances: I think we all have heard about kids that have suffocated 
inside refrigerators and we therefor faithfully remove the doors once they are 
left outside. The danger is not limited to refrigerators but other appliances 
such as laundry machines and dryers etc.

9. Holes: This refer to any hole beside holes at construction sites. If there 
is a hole on your property that can pose danger you better make sure to secure 
it.

10. Playgrounds: Most of us don't have playgrounds on our property but if you 
plan to put anything outside such as a slide or anything else for the kids you 
have to make sure it is secure. I always wondered why I see think rubber mats 
covering the ground in public playgrounds. Now I know.

I understand that all of the following should apply if you should be considered 
at fault:

1. You know (or should know) that children are likely to trespass on the 
property.

I don't think a court would accept your explanation that you didn't know there 
were any children around. Kids can travel long distances especially if they see 
something that they want to examine. Our towers are usually visible far away 
and kids have plenty of energy.

2. The condition on the property has the potential to cause death or serious 
bodily harm to children.

Yes, that's our towers. Also low hanging wires such as elevated groundplanes 
and antennas belong in this category. G-d only knows what can cause injuries. 
An antenna for a QRO repeater can also cause injuries such as burns. I wonder 
if an area with a high RF level counts but I guess so.

3. The children involved are too young or inexperienced to understand the risk 
presented by the condition.

Your own kids probably know how dangerous your stuff is even if they are just 
ten years old, but your neighbors kids might not. One case I reviewed referred 
to a child mentally limited AND affected by malted beverages. So, this can 
apply to dumb, drunk kids.

4. The benefit of maintaining the condition or the cost required to remedy the 
condition is minimal compared with the risk to children.

I don't think anybody can claim that it would be too expensive to put up some 
planks around the tower to prevent climbing. A couple of warning signs is not 
enough as these kids are assumed not able to read them.

5. You fail to take reasonable measures to eliminate the danger posed by the 
condition.

Simply, you can not ignore the danger and you should just not do minimum to 
protect the neighbor's kids.

As we are talking about courts and attorneys we have to know that these 
principles are applied on a case-by-case basis. A condition considered an 
attractive nuisance in one case might not in another. I do believe that if you 
put up the anti-climb planks or a reasonable high fens around the tower and add 
signs warning about the danger you should be relatively safe. Regarding high RF 
levels I suggest that you keep this under control so you can interrupt 
transmission if somebody enter that area. A better alternative would be to 
avoid high RF levels at ground altogether.

This is just what I have read over the InterNet and you are solely responsible 
for yourself using this information. Your insurance agent is probably the best 
source of information. I have noticed over my years in this country that it is 
the insurance company not the legislators that control what is allowed and not.

I'm sure this will generate comments but I just hope that we could put to rest 
what our responsibilities are when it comes to protect kids from the danger of 
our towers.

73 de,

Hans - N2JFS




-----Original Message-----
From: jimlux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
To: towertalk <towertalk@contesting.com>
Sent: Wed, Feb 8, 2017 12:15 pm
Subject: [TowerTalk] anti-climb, litigation, attractive nuisance


This may actually be a non-issue... Are there any reported cases of someone 
unauthorized climbing a amateur radio tower and getting hurt/killed and a 
lawsuit happening? Dumb idiots climb electric transmission towers all the time, 
and I recall hearing a story some idiot trying to chop the guy wires on a AM 
broadcast tower. Those are, I would argue, qualitatively different than a ham 
tower, both in attractiveness and accessibility. Anti-climb devices are a "good 
idea" in general, but I've seen an awful lot of "panel over the ladder secured 
by a padlock" things over the years, but I've not seen any more elaborate 
schemes (except, perhaps where there is a "access to the roof for theft" kind 
of risk) Maybe the reason for anti-climb devices is good-sense, not "avoiding 
litigation". some casual googling (since I don't have access to Lexis..) pretty 
much all the stuff I can find is either 1) just advice - make sure nobody can 
climb the tower 2) embedded in zoning/planning regulations "The tower shall 
provide a means to prevent unauthorized climbing" 3) discussions like the one 
we can find Lots of stuff about people killing themselves on towers - but they 
were all about things that were more "occupational" (e.g. Joe Blow climbing 
tower, and forgetting to hook in, and falling off). There was a "tower tech's 
girlfriend" lawsuit.. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-supreme-court/1322270.html 
14 year old climbing 90 ft 69kV electric transmission tower as attractive 
nuisance. "After spending the evening drinking beer and malt liquor at a 
friend's house, Billy Edwin Byrum, age 14, walked outside and down the street 
about half a block to a utility tower and began to climb it." lots of stuff 
about the tower (barbed wire, etc.) " At 1:18 a.m., Billy started to descend 
when there was a bright flash and all the lights in the area went out. Billy's 
body fell to the ground." interesting note that the attractive nuisance idea 
came from kids playing on railroad turntables in the late 19th century it goes 
on to discuss that "Many families and children live nearby.   The tower is easy 
to climb, and several other children in the area did so routinely before 
Billy's death.   Billy himself had climbed it many times without injury." and 
the real issue is whether Billy was aware of the danger of arcing (as opposed 
to simply touching the live wire), and whether a 14 year old (and receiving 
poor grade in special education classes) could be expected to know about 
flashovers, and whether the utility had the duty to warn of such things, etc. 
"The public knows that it is dangerous to touch a live wire, but very few know 
that there exists danger of death from this powerful current by near approach 
to the wire so charged, without actually coming in contact with the wire.   
Only those who are engaged in the business, and those who have stood beside 
some inanimate form whose scorched and burned flesh bears mute evidence to its 
tremendous power, know this." _______________________________________________ 
_______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list 
TowerTalk@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>