Posted on: Monday, January 13, 2003

EDITORIAL
State needs protection against injury lawsuits

Any plaintiff lawyer will tell you that one of the strongest lines of defense against negligence is the right to sue.

This argument will be made again this year as the Legislature considers a proposal to give the state protection from liability when people are injured or killed on public lands. The proposal stems from a lawsuit in which the state was found negligent in the Sacred Falls landslide.

Michael Buck, who is administrator of the state Division of Forestry and Wildlife, makes a fairly compelling argument for some kind of liability shield for the state. Without it, he warns, the state will simply have to close down many popular parks.

Clearly, we cannot let that happen.

At the same time, we don't want to see the state simply pre-emptively exempt itself from all liability. When a park or trail is created and the public invited in, there is an expectation that the facility is relatively safe and that potential dangers are well-advertised.

There are national standards for quality and quantity of warning signs, barriers and other protective devices.

If legislators decide the state needs some protection, they should offer such protection only in the context of clear and acceptable guidelines for the state's responsibilities. An issue in the Sacred Falls case was that the state was accused of doing an inadequate job of warning visitors of the potential dangers.

If our guidelines meet national standards, and if the state can demonstrate that it is fully meeting those standards, then some liability protection is warranted.

At the same time, government and the visitor industry should work cooperatively to do a better job of reminding visitors of the potential dangers to be found in our mountains and in our ocean. Instructive videos on incoming flights and other forms of information should be considered.