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

[Hans Hammarquist]

My prior message became a mess after all the C/R were removed resulting in one way too long paragraph. Let's hope it don't happen now.

Hans


-----Original Message-----
From: Hans Hammarquist via TowerTalk <towertalk at contesting.com>
To: towertalk <towertalk at contesting.com>
Sent: Thu, Feb 9, 2017 3:24 pm
Subject: [TowerTalk] Fwd: anti-climb, litigation, attractive nuisance


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 fence 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 -----