Wife fell to her death in National Park

What is the name of your state?PA.
My wife was hiking with friends at Raymondskill Falls in PA. There was a group of six they decided to cross the creek by using a fallen tree that layed across the creek. There was atleast five fallen trees in the area that crossed the creek. Her friends decided to sit down and scoot across that way. My wife decided to try crossing it by walking across it however she lost her balance and fell from the log, The log was between 12 and 15 feet above the water which was just afew inches deep. She shattered 4or 5 ribs when she landed which severly lacerated her liver and she passed away shortly after from cardiac arrest because of the loss of blood from the internal bleeding. She was just 44yrs old a mother of 5 ages ranging from 4 to 16.
I would like to know if there is a possibility for a wrongful death lawsuit against the Nation Park for not removing these logs that are laying across the creek that were being used by people to cross the creek under dangerous conditions.

[rmet4nzkx]

I'm sorry for your loss.

I'm sure there are disclaimers posted in the park at the gates and possibly on the receipts. The National Park's Service does have a hazardous tree policy which does acknowledge some responsibility for hazardous trees and unintentional inury.

Not knowing all the details, based on your statement:your wife took a risk, knowingly attempted to cross a fallen tree, that others had safely crossed before but chose to cross upright, lost her footing, fell onto the shallow streambed, breaking her ribs. Normally this would not have been fatal, however, her liver was lacerated by one of the broken ribs, she died from cardiac arrest due to internal bleeding. This occured so fast that there was not time to stabilize her or evacuate her. It is a tragic accident but is it wrongful death? I suggest you contact an attorney with the details and see what they advise, there may be other options.

Here is a link to the NPS hazardous tree policy:

The US Park Service Hazard Tree Guidelines ... 1346 (b)) provides the basis for the Service to be ... Other liability variables such as assumed risk by the ... constraints of manpower available to a park may not ...
[url]http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/hazard/nps.htm[/url]

Thank You for your reply. Where she parked her vehicle and entered the park there were no Travel at your own risk type of signs. The National Parks guidelines to dangerous trees discusses allready fallen trees that I noticed.

[nextwife]

The trees were only dangerous if one chose to cross them. I have hiked in canyons and national parks. One could just as easily scooted down to the shallow creek and crossed there.

I am sorry for your loss. But trees on huge wooded areas DO fall and cannot constantly be cleared out. One cannot know if there is a badly rotten area within the tree that could colllapse it while being crossed. These were not there to be used as bridges.

If it's obvious that people are using this fallen tree to cross the creek and that it poses a danger because it is 15feet above a very shallow creek, dont you think the Park Rangers should have it removed?

[cbg]

If it is obvious that the log was not placed there by the National Park Service to be used as a bridge, don't you think that people should know better than to use it that way?

I'm very sorry for the loss of your wife. But the National Park Service is not responsible for the choices she made. I am very familiar with the Park Service and the structures that are intended to be used as bridges are clear. They cannot possibly clear each and every tree as soon as it falls.

PA but it happened in a Federal Park

Now if the park service has regulations on what to do with trees that could cause harm if they fall don't you think they should have one for allready fallen trees that could cause harm. If a fallen tree has obviously been used as a bridge and it poses a grave danger shouldn't they make an effort to remove it?

[rmet4nzkx]

Originally Posted by sculvert33

PA but it happened in a Federal Park

Now if the park service has regulations on what to do with trees that could cause harm if they fall don't you think they should have one for allready fallen trees that could cause harm. If a fallen tree has obviously been used as a bridge and it poses a grave danger shouldn't they make an effort to remove it?

While they have a policy about dangerous trees there is something called the Reasonible man theory in law and which I will print some information, contact the US Park Service and ask for their claims information.

Reasonable person

The reasonable man or reasonable person standard is a legal fiction that originated in the development of the common law. The reasonable person is a hypothetical individual whose view of things is consulted in the process of making decisions of law. The question, "How would a reasonable person act under the circumstances" performs a critical role in legal reasoning in areas such as negligence and contract law.

The rationale for such a standard, is that the law will benefit the general public when it serves its reasonable members, and thus a reasonable application of the law is sought, compatible with planning, working, or getting along with others. The reasonable man is not the average man: this is not a democratic measure. To predict the appropriate sense of responsibility and other standards of the reasonable man, "what is reasonable" has to be appropriate to the issue. What the "average man" thinks or might do is irrelevant to a case concerning medicine, for example. But the reasonable person is appropriately informed, capable, aware of the law, and fair-minded. She might do something extraordinary under certain circumstances, but whatever he or she does or thinks is always reasonable.
Professional negligence: the reasonable doctor

In cases where professional opinions may be necessary the doctrine of the reasonable professional has developed. Thus if a doctor misdiagnoses a patient, the question is not, "Was that diagnosis wrong?" but rather, "Would a professional acting under the same circumstances, with the knowledge available to the field at the time of the diagnosis, have concluded that the given diagnosis was reasonable?" Questions about the knowledge of a professional in a particular discipline in a particular environment are relevant here, "Is the reasonable professional an expert or a general practitioner in this area? Of course as with any legal concept these lines of reasoning may be applied differently in differing jurisdictions.
Reasonable bystander

A related notion, used in common law contract law, is that of a reasonable bystander or reasonable third party. It is also known as the objective theory of contract formation and it is distinguished from the subjective theory of contract formation that is accepted in most civil law jurisdictions. Sometimes, particularly in the context of verbal contracts, the existence of a contract is disputed because one party declares that he or she did not intend to be legally bound. Since it would be impractical for the court to try to determine the truth of this statement, it uses the following test instead: if the outward conduct of the parties would have indicated to a reasonable bystander a serious intention to enter into an agreement, then the contract is deemed legally binding. Another circumstance where the reasonable bystander is used occurs when one party has inadvertently misstated the terms of the contract, and the other party sues to enforce those terms: if it would have been clear to a reasonable bystander that a mistake had been made, then the contract is voidable by the party who made the error; otherwise, the contract is binding.
Some critical approaches to the reasonable person standard

The reasonable man standard has been criticized as being sexist by various feminist and critical legal studies theorists. This has led to the adoption of the reasonable person nomenclature in some jurisdictions. However, the rejoinder might be that, a change in jargon does not alter the reality that, the reasonable person standard is a tradition dominated by the perspectives of elderly, male lawyers: for critics, the "reasonable person" bears suspicious resemblance to an Establishment "fat cat". After all, the "reasonable person" is not an ideologue or extremist of any kind: she solidly represents the ideal citizen, and thus there is no "reasonable Marxist" or "reasonable Fascist", which is frustrating to those who are ideologically inspired.

Advocates of the reasonable man standard defend it as an exercise in pretended objectivity. The jurist or legislator pretends to see through another's eyes, and in light of the characteristics of a given situation tries to subtract every petty human trait and unrealistic expectation, as a balancing test; to ask, for example, "Is the transaction cost of proposed conduct worth it in the hypothetical situation?" The problem, critics argue, is that this leaves no room for a heroic use of law. How can there be limits on efforts to prevent the negligent loss of life or limb, prejudiced in favor of a cold, economic calculus of loss, to determine when human life is "worth it"?