"Larry G" wrote in message
...
On May 18, 9:29 am, riverman wrote:
On May 17, 7:13 am, Larry G wrote:



In most liability situations.. involving rivers.. the outfitter ain't
going to stay in business long at all if the word gets out that he
sued a customer... right?-

LOL, agreed. But I could easily see an outfitter countersuing if the
passengers or their families sued for negligence. The countersuit
would be based on the passengers conspiring to put the guide (and
outfitter) in danger. And it probably wouldn't deter future
passengers...at least those who weren't planning on being idiots.

--riverman

yup.... but how would you "prove" this? Wouldn't you have to have
some other customers in the raft on your side?

the folks suing for damages... by the way.. are not going to really
care who gets nailed for the damages... just get them... and sad to
say.... the outfitter/guide, more than likely is going to be held at
least partially responsible... because unless you can prove ... as it
"legally" prove that someone ..on-purpose tried to sabotage - as
opposed to being totally stupid and uncooperative... I just don't see
it succeeding... and once it's is all over... the down-in-the-weeds
legal stuff is going to get forgotten when someone says ...2 years
later.. that the outfitter sued the customers... that's the message
that won't go away ...

Concord, Calif waterslide park had to pay up lots of money when some high
school kids got killed / injured on a collapsing slide. They pushed by the
worker trying to stop them to make a large train of bodies lined together.
Slide collapsed. Parents of those killed and injured sued and won. The
weight was in excess of a large SUV. So the park has posted rules, and
workers trying to enforce the rules and the people violating the rules on
purpose get the proceeds. Not correct.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...&sn=005&sc=310

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2...86-5568000_ITM

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...&sn=099&sc=813