Are We Vulnerable To Law Suits?

[KeithC]

In your best-guess opinion, in the US can a visitor to my weather site sue me, claiming that my weather data was incorrect, causing financial or property loss, injury or death?

I have a ubiquitous disclaimer on my site warning folks to seek official NWS data elsewhere if loss of life or property is at stake. But can someone ignore those warnings and still sue me --- theoretically --- I wonder?

I realize I need to get legal counsel for that answer, but just wondering if anyone has any info on this issue.

Thanks!

Keith
http://dentonrainfall.com/

[embayweather]

It would be their decision to use your 'incorrect' data. If they choose to bypass that warning it is their responsibility. However, can you legitimately say they saw the warning before accessing the data? Was it at the top of the data view or the bottom? Did they have to go through the disclaimer before they accessed the data?
If all your disclaimer options mean that they have seen it, do they then have the ability to claim your data was wrong? They would need access to instrument calibrators, which would have to be exposed under the same conditions at your site to be able to indicate that there is a problem. That is an expensive and costly exercise as they would have to leave the equipment in place for at least twelve months to get a reasonable sample, ideally longer. Have you calibrated your equipment yourself, and against what standard? I have long argued that we amateurs should calibrate our kit if only for our own satisfaction. I have been lucky that I have been able to calibrate all of my kit against recognised standards. Even they can be at fault. I recently acquired a mercury maximum thermometer from a defunct, national weather station. I have subsequently discovered that it reads 0.5 deg C too high! Another example is that the wind speed on my Oregon 968 was ready 20 - 30 % too low. Someone once said to me that is you give a man a thermometer he will know the temperature, if you give him two he never will.
The situation, as you can see, is getting increasingly complex, especially for you guys on that side of the pond, as your culture tends to be very litigious. We are still learning that trick. By all means get legal advice, make all the correct statements on your website, calibrate all your instrumentation, plug every loophole you can think of and someone will still find a way through if they really want. But what you will lose along the way, which is far more important, is your enjoyment of what we do, and if you lose that, why bother in the first place?
By all means try and calibrate your kit as best you can. Please  read the Weather Observers Handbook, http://www.amazon.com/Weather-Observers-Handbook-Stephen-Burt/dp/1107662281. An excellent reference, but both of those will increase your enjoyment not make it worse. At the same time it will give you more confidence with what you are sharing, and thus less worry about folk moaning.

Best wishes

Mike

PS What about those sites that mine your data and re use it? Who is liable then? Just enjoy your weather

[KeithC]

Thanks for your thoughts, Mike.

[Randall75]

Hi Keith
 This is why I put on my web site:

It is a personal weather station for my private use but I upload my data to many weather sites around the world,  You should always contact the NWS for a more accurate weather information, It is use to compare weather data to other PWS, NOAA and NWS reporting stations in area.[/l][/t] If you have concerns about it you should state on your web that you are not responseable for any mistakes that is on your site Hope this helps cheers

[KeithC]

And that is exactly what I have done. Thank you for the advice, Randall75. My disclaimer is conceptually the same as yours. Additionally it basically states: Don't use my weather data if financial loss or property loss, injury or death is at stake. If so, go to an official NWS source for your weather info.

What I'm wondering, though --- as you know, people here in the States ignore warnings, experience trouble then sue for damages. They may not win, but the defendant must still hire an attorney and pay for that expensive battle.

Fortunately I was not able to Google up any such legal battles with weather enthusiasts. I even posed the question to the head meteorologist at one of Dallas' most popular local news stations. He simply said that he had never heard of such a legal case before, but warned me that he was not a lawyer (rule #1: cover thine own @$$  ). And thus our disclaimers...

[elagache]

Dear Keith and WeatherCat fans,

In your best-guess opinion, in the US can a visitor to my weather site sue me, claiming that my weather data was incorrect, causing financial or property loss, injury or death?

Sadly the one word answer is - yes.

We are in a lawsuit crazed period of society and people sue at the drop of a hat.  So it is certainly possible.  That is one reason why I've deliberately kept a low profile and not tried to attract much interest to my website.

Still, the odds are relatively low.  First, someone has pay attention your website.  If you have the only reliable weather data in a place that people frequent, like a resort or something, you might get a following and if somebody were hurt based on your weather data - yeah, that's the sort of lawsuit that might fly.

If you are just one person out of many with stations in a more populated area - why your station?  Trying to be a bit inconspicuous is probably the best remedy.

I don't know what is the status of disclaimers.  When I was a scuba instructor we were bombarded with legal advice and disclaimers weren't good enough.  The scuba curriculum was almost a brain-washing process where students were repeatedly told what never to do - dozens of times.  That was the PADI response to single disclaimer not being taken seriously by a civil court jury who would side with victim even if the victim did sign a legal document releasing the instructor for liability.

Particularly in California, the lawyers have managed to weaken the principle of a legal contract where the assumption is that the "victim" read the disclaimer and supposedly therefore understood the risks.  Particularly on a flashy website, unless the disclaimer is front and center the victim could probably get away with the claim that they never saw the disclaimer.

If you worried about it, I think it is better to keep a low profile than to suppose a strong disclaimer good enough by itself - at least if it isn't displayed where nobody could miss it.

Cheers, Edouard   

[embayweather]

As a second thought I am not aware of any legal cases on this side of the water with professional meteorologists involved. Perhaps how much less for we enthusiasts?
However, Edouard, as usual, raises an interesting point about keeping a low profile, which perhaps raises the question as to why you record the weather, study the weather, put the weather on the web etc. If you are doing it for the public good, i.e. to share with others, then you really need to raise your game on a number of fronts, because , by implication, you are inviting them to use it, and in extending an invite you must have faith in your data to be useable to some folk, thus the disclaimer becomes almost irrelevant as you are expecting people to look at it (because they have an interest in the weather in that area). If you are expecting them to look at your data and not use it for anything then it seems a bit far fetched. If you invite them to look at it then it must be available in an accurate form (why post inaccurate data? Have you done it to meet a local need? If so , what is that need and are you really meeting it? Is inaccurate information useful or better than nothing? Why then do you put your data on the Net? If it is to share then see above, if it is for your own use, say whilst you are away from home , then it should be private for you only. I do it for me. So I can view the weather when I am away or need to check the weather for my daughter's work. I share with others, like this forum, who understand the limitations, or the likes of Wunderground and CWOP who also understand (this latter reason is currently under review). At the same time I also have links to the Met Office and other sites, so comparative data is immediately available.
Its a very bigh question here, and one that I think will roll on for a little while yet. I will watch the answers with great interest.

Best wishes

Mike

[KeithC]

I wish there was such a thing as a lawsuit repellant with DEET in it so we could all enjoy the rewarding feeling of driving a lot of traffic to our sites without fear of those little blood-suckers ruining our picnic.

To address Mike's point, even though my data is accurate, hiccups do occur from time to time. Today, for instance: My web host badly botched my server upgrade and the subsequent migration of my site to the new hardware. With my site being down for hours, some poor unsuspecting visitor could conceivably fail to notice that the data on my site was not current. Using that misleading data to determine whether or not to irrigate his orchard might result in a costly mistake for him. Then I get to hear from his lawyer wanting compensation.

So trusting one's data becomes irrelevant. Ugly. Even keeping a low profile doesn't prevent the above hypothetical from happening. However it does reduce the odds, which is important -- but a definite buzz-kill.

[KeithC]

...by the way, my hypothetical orchard owner (mentioned above) is relying on my site's weather data because he's out of town visiting his mother who had a knee replacement surgery. And his name is either Hubert or Brooster. I haven't decided yet...

[WCDev]

I think there's an element of 'good faith' involved - I publish my data in good faith that it is as accurate and up to date as I can make it. I'd be more than surprised if this wasn't recognised in any case where someone was trying to blame my data/me for some negative impact on them.

Besides, the majority of the data is current/historical - I think there may be more of an issue with forecasts.

[embayweather]

I would go for Hubert KeithC, sounds more like an orchard owner !!

Best wishes

Mike

[KeithC]

Although I don't claim authority here, in the US, my guess is that once a verdict is reached, good faith will have a good deal of weight in the punishment phase of the trial, but not as much in whether the case goes to trial or not, or in determining guilt or innocence.

[KeithC]

Okay, Mike, Hubert it is. You're right; Brooster sounds more like a lobster fisherman.

[KeithC]

One more guess: I'll bet there exists either a very inexpensive liability rider for one's home insurance policy, or an inexpensive stand-alone policy specifically for liability.

I'll see what I can find out and report back.

[KeithC]

Yes indeed there are a variety of inexpensive "umbrella liability" insurance policies - search keywords "umbrella liability policy". Some are specialty Internet and/or technology policies for web sites and/or software developers. They even protect against damages sued for because of inadvertent viruses planted on your site. Such policies cover your heavy costs incurred while fighting to get ridiculous lawsuits dropped.

Until I hear back from my lawyer about the question posed in this thread, the same lawyer who formed my Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) for me, please bear with me. My email to him asked whether my LLC completely, partially or not at all protects me from potential legal problems arising from my weather site (such as the hypothetical orchard owner mentioned above). This info might be helpful in determining whether to form an LLC yourself.