It sucks that he was injured, especially as badly as he was, but he was driving a snowmobile in the dark at high speeds and ran into a dark thing. That the dark thing was temporarily put there by...
It sucks that he was injured, especially as badly as he was, but he was driving a snowmobile in the dark at high speeds and ran into a dark thing. That the dark thing was temporarily put there by someone else is unfortunate, but it's every vehicle operator's responsibility to travel at speeds where they can control their vehicle. If a tree had fallen across the track would he be suing the landowner? (The answer is yes, because he did that too.)
Sympathy in the abstract for him and his injuries, but not a lot for his actions before or after the crash. Really, I think of this as a consequence of the poor health insurance and assistance for the disabled in the USA. The injured man is framing the money as necessary for him to have decent quality of life, so he may well not have been suing if it wasn't a matter of his future wellbeing.
Don't know anything about this man or the details of exactly what happened outside of this article, but this could be the underlying issue I think. Insurance in the US sucks so hard that they...
Really, I think of this as a consequence of the poor health insurance and assistance for the disabled in the USA. The injured man is framing the money as necessary for him to have decent quality of life, so he may well not have been suing if it wasn't a matter of his future wellbeing.
Don't know anything about this man or the details of exactly what happened outside of this article, but this could be the underlying issue I think. Insurance in the US sucks so hard that they result in these ridiculous headlines that might otherwise have perfectly valid explanations. Dude hits a helicopter -> rakes in massive hospital bills -> insurance refuses to pay -> dude sues the government in order to try and recoup his losses that his insurance should have probably just paid -> headlines ensue -> "wow what an idiot, suing the government over his own stupidity"
It's like that viral story from a few years back of the aunt that sued her nephew because he ran up to hug her and accidentally broke her wrist. Sounds pretty heartless right? Worst aunt ever right? Well in reality the boy's parents tried to get their insurance to cover the aunt's bills from the broken wrist, but the insurance offered $1. So the only way to force the insurance to pay was to sue them, but she couldn't sue the insurance company directly (because the whole fucking system is a joke), so she had to sue her nephew. Sensational headlines ensued, but they should have directed their ire at the insurance company, not the family that got shafted by a deeply fucked-up system.
Or the classic Hot Coffee story where the lady sued McDonald's to pay for her hospital bills after getting severely scalded by their coffee and then got laughed at by the public for her 'frivolous' lawsuit that was anything but. None of that legal stuff would have happened if her medical bills didn't add up to ridiculous amounts or if her insurance company just paid it like you would expect an insurance company to do.
If all the defendants allege is true, I’m not very sympathetic to this guy. Not to say I’m happy he got life threatening injuries or anything sadistic like that. But it seems to me he was driving...
If all the defendants allege is true, I’m not very sympathetic to this guy. Not to say I’m happy he got life threatening injuries or anything sadistic like that. But it seems to me he was driving very recklessly and could easily have injured someone else if he had met someone on the trail.
Going above 100km/h on a snowmobile is already very, very fast. It’s not safe to do in broad daylight unless you’re a professional. Where I live there is a 70km/h speed limit on trails. It’s not like driving a car: even a prepared track is bumpier than a typical road and it’s a lot easier to lose control over the vehicle. Now, combining that with not being fully sober? Ugh. Like I said I’m not happy the guy is living through a bad recovery, but imagine if he did that to someone else? And I think that was a very real possibility here.
They don’t specify which prescription drugs he allegedly took, but some meds can make 2 beers feel like 10. He might have been almost sober or practically wasted, for all we know. But I was brought up with the idea that you do not operate motor vehicles until you’re sure any intoxicants have completely left the system, which I think is a good rule to live by.
All of this is assuming what the federal lawyers allege is true of course. I have no way of knowing. It just pisses me off when people act in a way that endangers others, even if I take no joy in their pain. I understand that from a legal perspective any small admission of guilt would be a bad strategy. But I hope that guy knows deep down that regardless of any negligence on the army’s part, he fucked up.
Aside from that moral rant, it also sounds incredibly stupid to park a stealth vehicle on an active snowmobile trail at night. I’m no lawyer so I have no particular opinion on who is legally at fault here.
Interesting case. I don't know enough to say who is more at fault. The government is claiming he had had two beers and prescription drugs before going out. Is this just the government trying to...
Interesting case. I don't know enough to say who is more at fault.
The government is claiming he had had two beers and prescription drugs before going out. Is this just the government trying to shift blame off themselves, or was that enough to intoxicate him to a level where he would have worse reaction time and judgement than a completely sober person?
This was also at a private air strip where pilots need prior authorization to land. The military received authorization, so wouldn't it be the landowner's fault for allowing snowmobiling on an airstrip where a military helicopter was going to land?
A Black Hawk is a stealth helicopter designed to be hard to see in the dark. Should the military be forced to make aircraft more visible when they train in areas where access to the public is not restricted? I would think that the military should have to make a reasonable effort to prevent harm to the public during their exercises whether that means making your presence known with light or noise, or by restricting access to areas they train in.
Just a nitpick, but Blackhawks are definitely not stealth aircraft. They're extremely loud, extremely big, and have extremely large radar signatures. They're painted dark green, like all army...
Just a nitpick, but Blackhawks are definitely not stealth aircraft. They're extremely loud, extremely big, and have extremely large radar signatures.
They're painted dark green, like all army tactical aircraft, but I don't even think that would constitute camouflaged, much less stealth. Unless it was absolutely pitch dark without headlights, or you were going way too fast, or you were inebriated, it would be pretty hard to miss one sitting in the middle of a trail. They're roughly the size of a semi trailer.
If this guy missed a Blackhawk, he would have just as, or even more easily missed a deer or moose walking through, a fallen tree, or a car or truck parked in that area as well, that is to say, he wasn't operating that vehicle safely at all.
Ah yes you are correct. I had the impression that the Black Hawk was a stealth helicopter because of the one used by Seal Team 6, but that was a special helicopter that was modified for stealth....
Ah yes you are correct. I had the impression that the Black Hawk was a stealth helicopter because of the one used by Seal Team 6, but that was a special helicopter that was modified for stealth.
It appears that it was pitch black outside, so while the Black Hawk isn't a stealth aircraft, having dark paint and no lights would make it almost impossible to see to the naked eye.
I do think that the snowmobile driver was operating it recklessly as he was going extremely fast in an unlit area and not 100% sober, but I think the military should do more to be visible if they park in areas open to the public. If the military had a policy to throw down a few battery powered floodlights or a flashing red beacon when they parked in dark areas with public access, less people could be injured.
The military is not 100% at fault, but they can make some very cheap operational changes that could prevent the likelihood and severity of future accidents.
I'm sympathetic to the plaintiff and think that the defendant is at fault. As a parallel, I was involved in a personal injury lawsuit where a city had built a bike lane through unmarked and...
I'm sympathetic to the plaintiff and think that the defendant is at fault.
As a parallel, I was involved in a personal injury lawsuit where a city had built a bike lane through unmarked and unsigned speed bumps that were materially identical as the pavement rendering them invisible, so I got a decent look at how this would play out. For the plaintiff to have a strong case, they have to prove constructive or actual notice.
Basically, actual notice is where the property owner actually knew that the dangerous conditions existed; constructive notice is where the property owner reasonably should have known.
It could be argued that the helicopter's stealth technology is a kind of weapon, and the property owner, the airstrip owner and the government had together placed but failed to secure the weaponry on their premises where the airstrip has invited the public to enjoy.
There's also comparative negligence, a type of negligence where each party contributes negligence. So depending on Mass. law, the plaintiff's modest intoxication could shift some but not all negligence to him, thereby reducing how much he might win from the government.
That's also on a public road/walkway. Snowmobiles themselves are unregulated and the trails are likely completely unregulated as well and likely on private property. This guy went out to do a...
As a parallel, I was involved in a personal injury lawsuit where a city had built a bike lane through unmarked and unsigned speed bumps
That's also on a public road/walkway. Snowmobiles themselves are unregulated and the trails are likely completely unregulated as well and likely on private property.
This guy went out to do a risky activity, at a risky time of day, after consuming alcohol. Maybe some blame can be pointed at the military and crew but I think he also has to accept a large amount of personal responsibility.
Edit: also, as far as stealth technology goes... its dark flat paint. Moose are also almost invisible at night.
I think 95% of the blame is on the air strip owner. He told both parties they could use the land without informing either party about it being used in some other fashion. I'd bet Smith is only...
I think 95% of the blame is on the air strip owner. He told both parties they could use the land without informing either party about it being used in some other fashion. I'd bet Smith is only going after the military because the owner can't afford to pay.
At least 5% is Smith's fault too. He saw something dark and didn't slow down. He just kept on at that dangerous speed headed right for it. Not a smart choice.
I can see this from an ethical standpoint, but legally I don't think it holds water at all. If I tell two parties they can use my land, and then one crashes into the other one, that's not my...
I think 95% of the blame is on the air strip owner. He told both parties they could use the land without informing either party about it being used in some other fashion. I'd bet Smith is only going after the military because the owner can't afford to pay.
I can see this from an ethical standpoint, but legally I don't think it holds water at all. If I tell two parties they can use my land, and then one crashes into the other one, that's not my fault.
Of course, the driver did sue the owner of the land and they settled, but I don't think that necessarily equates to a slam-dunk legal case.
I think you'd have a responsibility to inform each party of the other ones activities. Of course, if the plaintiff here didn't actually talk to the land owner, and instead just heard through the...
I think you'd have a responsibility to inform each party of the other ones activities.
Of course, if the plaintiff here didn't actually talk to the land owner, and instead just heard through the grapevine that you were allowed to snowmobile here (which I expect is the case), then that ceases to be the landowners responsibility.
The landowner definitely should have told the army/FAA that it was used as an active snowmobile trail though.
Also, while I feel bad for the plaintiff here, lawsuits like this is exactly why landowners very, very frequently will not allow others to use their land, even though it costs them nothing, and they would have been all for it if it weren't for the threat of legal liability.
The real long term effect of cases like this in the long run will mean that landowners just say "no snowmobiling on my land. Too bad."
Since it's a private airstrip, I see the landowner as air traffic control. It's their job to notify the other parties and make sure accidents don't happen. But I also understand they aren't air...
Since it's a private airstrip, I see the landowner as air traffic control. It's their job to notify the other parties and make sure accidents don't happen. But I also understand they aren't air traffic control and might not actually be liable.
I've been thinking about this, and honestly I don't think the guy has a case. I wouldn't vote in his favor on that jury anyway. It was dark, and he was traveling so fast he received serious, life...
I've been thinking about this, and honestly I don't think the guy has a case. I wouldn't vote in his favor on that jury anyway.
It was dark, and he was traveling so fast he received serious, life threatening, and permanently crippling injuries. That's how fast he was driving. Apparently he was either (a) not paying attention or (b) outdriving the reach of the snowmobile's headlights.
The rule with vehicles is you don't drive faster than you can stop based on what's in front of you. At night, that mostly means how far you can see, which is basically the reach of the headlights.
Would anyone have expected a helicopter to be on the trail? No, there I agree. However, it could have been anything on that trail. A fallen tree or rock. An animal. Another snowmobile (perhaps it got stuck), or a vehicle (such as a truck). It could have been a pedestrian. He could have lost control and veered off the trail, into a healthy tree or into a rock or over a dropoff.
I noted, and it seemed almost like an afterthought in the article, he's a lawyer. Of course he can sue; he can do his own legal work. He doesn't have to come up with thousands of dollars, at a minimum, to put someone who can on retainer to do the filings and the rest of the stuff involved in a court case. Yet one of the things he's suing for is lost ability to work in the future. So is he doing his own legal filings, or is he incapable of that? Perhaps it's just hard, and he can't work at speed or something, but regardless he can head into court because he's a lawyer. Any average Joe couldn't.
Of course it sucks he got hurt. But, I feel it's pretty clear he got hurt because he was negligent. Personally negligent. If he'd fallen off a cliff, driven into a lake, slipped on ice, been hit by a falling branch, any of thousands and thousands of accidents one could name, none of those things would be the fault of the government.
I get that he wants the money. He has medical bills, he needs future treatment, and if he has life-long crippling injuries that make him unable to work then he needs to figure something out or he'll be left to apply for SSI disability or some similar program as about his only option. Presumably he didn't have any kind of accident insurance he can tap, or he would've.
On the subject of his inability to work ... he's a lawyer. So most of his work is at a desk, which begs the question just how crippled is he if he can't sit at a desk; would he sit at home in the same crippled state and that would be okay? But somehow sitting at a desk isn't? But that's just an oddity, and mostly irrelevant unless he wins and we're now considering damages. The bottom line is he was going too fast, in the dark, possibly while under intoxication, and had an accident.
It's his fault, not the government's. He's going after the government because they have deep pockets. What if it had been a private pilot who'd landed that helicopter there? Or one of the non-aircraft examples from above, like a hunter who'd parked his UTV, or a fellow snowmobiler who broke down. Would he sue them? If they were ordinary people without means, who didn't have any insurance he could rely on to pay a judgement if he won one?
His life is permanently changed. But I think it's almost entirely his fault. And what small, very small, parts of this whole mess that might not be on him, I really don't feel like they're enough to overcome his actions which led to the accident.
Most of this, other than his pain, wouldn't be an issue if we had universal healthcoverage. That's what's driving his actual problem. Accidents happen, and one happened to him. He's in dire straits because he can't afford millions to pay for surgery and treatment and all that. So really he's a victim once over of his own carelessness, but is now being doubly punished for it by a for-profit medical system.
I totally get why he's upset. If he ran for office to reform healthcare he'd have my support. But not for his court case.
The issue with work might be brain damage. However, I agree with you. Just because a wilderness or countryside trail has been safe in the past doesn't mean you won't hit a rock or tree branch or...
The issue with work might be brain damage. However, I agree with you. Just because a wilderness or countryside trail has been safe in the past doesn't mean you won't hit a rock or tree branch or moose on your path this time.
It sucks that he was injured, especially as badly as he was, but he was driving a snowmobile in the dark at high speeds and ran into a dark thing. That the dark thing was temporarily put there by someone else is unfortunate, but it's every vehicle operator's responsibility to travel at speeds where they can control their vehicle. If a tree had fallen across the track would he be suing the landowner? (The answer is yes, because he did that too.)
Sympathy in the abstract for him and his injuries, but not a lot for his actions before or after the crash. Really, I think of this as a consequence of the poor health insurance and assistance for the disabled in the USA. The injured man is framing the money as necessary for him to have decent quality of life, so he may well not have been suing if it wasn't a matter of his future wellbeing.
Don't know anything about this man or the details of exactly what happened outside of this article, but this could be the underlying issue I think. Insurance in the US sucks so hard that they result in these ridiculous headlines that might otherwise have perfectly valid explanations. Dude hits a helicopter -> rakes in massive hospital bills -> insurance refuses to pay -> dude sues the government in order to try and recoup his losses that his insurance should have probably just paid -> headlines ensue -> "wow what an idiot, suing the government over his own stupidity"
It's like that viral story from a few years back of the aunt that sued her nephew because he ran up to hug her and accidentally broke her wrist. Sounds pretty heartless right? Worst aunt ever right? Well in reality the boy's parents tried to get their insurance to cover the aunt's bills from the broken wrist, but the insurance offered $1. So the only way to force the insurance to pay was to sue them, but she couldn't sue the insurance company directly (because the whole fucking system is a joke), so she had to sue her nephew. Sensational headlines ensued, but they should have directed their ire at the insurance company, not the family that got shafted by a deeply fucked-up system.
Or the classic Hot Coffee story where the lady sued McDonald's to pay for her hospital bills after getting severely scalded by their coffee and then got laughed at by the public for her 'frivolous' lawsuit that was anything but. None of that legal stuff would have happened if her medical bills didn't add up to ridiculous amounts or if her insurance company just paid it like you would expect an insurance company to do.
If all the defendants allege is true, I’m not very sympathetic to this guy. Not to say I’m happy he got life threatening injuries or anything sadistic like that. But it seems to me he was driving very recklessly and could easily have injured someone else if he had met someone on the trail.
Going above 100km/h on a snowmobile is already very, very fast. It’s not safe to do in broad daylight unless you’re a professional. Where I live there is a 70km/h speed limit on trails. It’s not like driving a car: even a prepared track is bumpier than a typical road and it’s a lot easier to lose control over the vehicle. Now, combining that with not being fully sober? Ugh. Like I said I’m not happy the guy is living through a bad recovery, but imagine if he did that to someone else? And I think that was a very real possibility here.
They don’t specify which prescription drugs he allegedly took, but some meds can make 2 beers feel like 10. He might have been almost sober or practically wasted, for all we know. But I was brought up with the idea that you do not operate motor vehicles until you’re sure any intoxicants have completely left the system, which I think is a good rule to live by.
All of this is assuming what the federal lawyers allege is true of course. I have no way of knowing. It just pisses me off when people act in a way that endangers others, even if I take no joy in their pain. I understand that from a legal perspective any small admission of guilt would be a bad strategy. But I hope that guy knows deep down that regardless of any negligence on the army’s part, he fucked up.
Aside from that moral rant, it also sounds incredibly stupid to park a stealth vehicle on an active snowmobile trail at night. I’m no lawyer so I have no particular opinion on who is legally at fault here.
Interesting case. I don't know enough to say who is more at fault.
The government is claiming he had had two beers and prescription drugs before going out. Is this just the government trying to shift blame off themselves, or was that enough to intoxicate him to a level where he would have worse reaction time and judgement than a completely sober person?
This was also at a private air strip where pilots need prior authorization to land. The military received authorization, so wouldn't it be the landowner's fault for allowing snowmobiling on an airstrip where a military helicopter was going to land?
A Black Hawk is a stealth helicopter designed to be hard to see in the dark. Should the military be forced to make aircraft more visible when they train in areas where access to the public is not restricted? I would think that the military should have to make a reasonable effort to prevent harm to the public during their exercises whether that means making your presence known with light or noise, or by restricting access to areas they train in.
Just a nitpick, but Blackhawks are definitely not stealth aircraft. They're extremely loud, extremely big, and have extremely large radar signatures.
They're painted dark green, like all army tactical aircraft, but I don't even think that would constitute camouflaged, much less stealth. Unless it was absolutely pitch dark without headlights, or you were going way too fast, or you were inebriated, it would be pretty hard to miss one sitting in the middle of a trail. They're roughly the size of a semi trailer.
If this guy missed a Blackhawk, he would have just as, or even more easily missed a deer or moose walking through, a fallen tree, or a car or truck parked in that area as well, that is to say, he wasn't operating that vehicle safely at all.
Ah yes you are correct. I had the impression that the Black Hawk was a stealth helicopter because of the one used by Seal Team 6, but that was a special helicopter that was modified for stealth.
It appears that it was pitch black outside, so while the Black Hawk isn't a stealth aircraft, having dark paint and no lights would make it almost impossible to see to the naked eye.
I do think that the snowmobile driver was operating it recklessly as he was going extremely fast in an unlit area and not 100% sober, but I think the military should do more to be visible if they park in areas open to the public. If the military had a policy to throw down a few battery powered floodlights or a flashing red beacon when they parked in dark areas with public access, less people could be injured.
The military is not 100% at fault, but they can make some very cheap operational changes that could prevent the likelihood and severity of future accidents.
I'm sympathetic to the plaintiff and think that the defendant is at fault.
As a parallel, I was involved in a personal injury lawsuit where a city had built a bike lane through unmarked and unsigned speed bumps that were materially identical as the pavement rendering them invisible, so I got a decent look at how this would play out. For the plaintiff to have a strong case, they have to prove constructive or actual notice.
Basically, actual notice is where the property owner actually knew that the dangerous conditions existed; constructive notice is where the property owner reasonably should have known.
It could be argued that the helicopter's stealth technology is a kind of weapon, and the property owner, the airstrip owner and the government had together placed but failed to secure the weaponry on their premises where the airstrip has invited the public to enjoy.
There's also comparative negligence, a type of negligence where each party contributes negligence. So depending on Mass. law, the plaintiff's modest intoxication could shift some but not all negligence to him, thereby reducing how much he might win from the government.
That's also on a public road/walkway. Snowmobiles themselves are unregulated and the trails are likely completely unregulated as well and likely on private property.
This guy went out to do a risky activity, at a risky time of day, after consuming alcohol. Maybe some blame can be pointed at the military and crew but I think he also has to accept a large amount of personal responsibility.
Edit: also, as far as stealth technology goes... its dark flat paint. Moose are also almost invisible at night.
Those damned tactical stealth meese...
/noise
I think 95% of the blame is on the air strip owner. He told both parties they could use the land without informing either party about it being used in some other fashion. I'd bet Smith is only going after the military because the owner can't afford to pay.
At least 5% is Smith's fault too. He saw something dark and didn't slow down. He just kept on at that dangerous speed headed right for it. Not a smart choice.
I can see this from an ethical standpoint, but legally I don't think it holds water at all. If I tell two parties they can use my land, and then one crashes into the other one, that's not my fault.
Of course, the driver did sue the owner of the land and they settled, but I don't think that necessarily equates to a slam-dunk legal case.
I think you'd have a responsibility to inform each party of the other ones activities.
Of course, if the plaintiff here didn't actually talk to the land owner, and instead just heard through the grapevine that you were allowed to snowmobile here (which I expect is the case), then that ceases to be the landowners responsibility.
The landowner definitely should have told the army/FAA that it was used as an active snowmobile trail though.
Also, while I feel bad for the plaintiff here, lawsuits like this is exactly why landowners very, very frequently will not allow others to use their land, even though it costs them nothing, and they would have been all for it if it weren't for the threat of legal liability.
The real long term effect of cases like this in the long run will mean that landowners just say "no snowmobiling on my land. Too bad."
Since it's a private airstrip, I see the landowner as air traffic control. It's their job to notify the other parties and make sure accidents don't happen. But I also understand they aren't air traffic control and might not actually be liable.
I've been thinking about this, and honestly I don't think the guy has a case. I wouldn't vote in his favor on that jury anyway.
It was dark, and he was traveling so fast he received serious, life threatening, and permanently crippling injuries. That's how fast he was driving. Apparently he was either (a) not paying attention or (b) outdriving the reach of the snowmobile's headlights.
The rule with vehicles is you don't drive faster than you can stop based on what's in front of you. At night, that mostly means how far you can see, which is basically the reach of the headlights.
Would anyone have expected a helicopter to be on the trail? No, there I agree. However, it could have been anything on that trail. A fallen tree or rock. An animal. Another snowmobile (perhaps it got stuck), or a vehicle (such as a truck). It could have been a pedestrian. He could have lost control and veered off the trail, into a healthy tree or into a rock or over a dropoff.
I noted, and it seemed almost like an afterthought in the article, he's a lawyer. Of course he can sue; he can do his own legal work. He doesn't have to come up with thousands of dollars, at a minimum, to put someone who can on retainer to do the filings and the rest of the stuff involved in a court case. Yet one of the things he's suing for is lost ability to work in the future. So is he doing his own legal filings, or is he incapable of that? Perhaps it's just hard, and he can't work at speed or something, but regardless he can head into court because he's a lawyer. Any average Joe couldn't.
Of course it sucks he got hurt. But, I feel it's pretty clear he got hurt because he was negligent. Personally negligent. If he'd fallen off a cliff, driven into a lake, slipped on ice, been hit by a falling branch, any of thousands and thousands of accidents one could name, none of those things would be the fault of the government.
I get that he wants the money. He has medical bills, he needs future treatment, and if he has life-long crippling injuries that make him unable to work then he needs to figure something out or he'll be left to apply for SSI disability or some similar program as about his only option. Presumably he didn't have any kind of accident insurance he can tap, or he would've.
On the subject of his inability to work ... he's a lawyer. So most of his work is at a desk, which begs the question just how crippled is he if he can't sit at a desk; would he sit at home in the same crippled state and that would be okay? But somehow sitting at a desk isn't? But that's just an oddity, and mostly irrelevant unless he wins and we're now considering damages. The bottom line is he was going too fast, in the dark, possibly while under intoxication, and had an accident.
It's his fault, not the government's. He's going after the government because they have deep pockets. What if it had been a private pilot who'd landed that helicopter there? Or one of the non-aircraft examples from above, like a hunter who'd parked his UTV, or a fellow snowmobiler who broke down. Would he sue them? If they were ordinary people without means, who didn't have any insurance he could rely on to pay a judgement if he won one?
His life is permanently changed. But I think it's almost entirely his fault. And what small, very small, parts of this whole mess that might not be on him, I really don't feel like they're enough to overcome his actions which led to the accident.
Most of this, other than his pain, wouldn't be an issue if we had universal healthcoverage. That's what's driving his actual problem. Accidents happen, and one happened to him. He's in dire straits because he can't afford millions to pay for surgery and treatment and all that. So really he's a victim once over of his own carelessness, but is now being doubly punished for it by a for-profit medical system.
I totally get why he's upset. If he ran for office to reform healthcare he'd have my support. But not for his court case.
The issue with work might be brain damage. However, I agree with you. Just because a wilderness or countryside trail has been safe in the past doesn't mean you won't hit a rock or tree branch or moose on your path this time.