Legal issues when making forecasts

[OuterBanker]

OMG, please say your kidding hial2. Geeze, no wonder NHC is overly cautious when they publish their advisories. But who is really responsible, the NHC, the media for overhyping, etc. Gimme a break.

[JBK in Georgia]

Formerly a lurker, wanted to register for this post, only because it's the first one on which I have some knowledge. (I'm an attorney with several clients who have similar forums.)

Generally speaking, people can (and often do) sue for any reason whatsoever, good or bad case. While Uma's attorney is not completely incorrect, s/he was not completely correct either. There are generally three types of billboards: free posting, moderated posting, and censored posting.

In a free posting situation, the owners of the board allow anyone to post anything without any moderation whatsoever. In a legal case, they have some protection because they have a policy to not interfere with what anyone posts, true or untrue, libelous or not. However, depending on how the site is run, a reasonable person might decide that what is posted is endorsed by the owner of the site, in which case there might be some liability for the board owners.

In a moderated site, such as this one, a potential plaintiff might claim that the board moderators were negligent if they do not correct a post that has incorrect or misleading information. Again, this would be determined by the "reasonable person standard." In other words, would a reasonable person believe that the moderators were negligent for allowing a post to stand without censure? In the case of this board, the disclaimer on sign in and the board policies and rules for posting would probably make it a difficult case for any plaintiff to successfully argue that the board moderators agreed with any particular poster's position.

In a censored board, all posts must be reviewed before they are posted. In this case, the board owners have greater potential liability because they are, at least in theory, approving each post made to the board.

As to liability for individual posters, I do not see much likelihood of success for any claim by someone that they were mislead by a prediction that a storm would be a fish when, in fact, it slammed into New York. The individual would have to show that their reliance on the prediction was reasonable, and that would be a very difficult standard to meet with all of the different official and non-official predictions out there.

The foregoing is general information only, not specific legal advice. No attorney/client relationship has been created or should be implied.

See--even lawyers worry about unreasonable reliance on things they post on the Internet and use disclaimers.

[hial2]

OMG, please say your kidding hial2. Geeze, no wonder NHC is overly cautious when they publish their advisories. But who is really responsible, the NHC, the media for overhyping, etc. Gimme a break.

No kidding..In fact, last I heard they were trying to get together with officials from adjoining counties Broward and Monroe to form a coalition to ask the feds...

[mf_dolphin]

Formerly a lurker, wanted to register for this post, only because it's the first one on which I have some knowledge. (I'm an attorney with several clients who have similar forums.)

Generally speaking, people can (and often do) sue for any reason whatsoever, good or bad case. While Uma's attorney is not completely incorrect, s/he was not completely correct either. There are generally three types of billboards: free posting, moderated posting, and censored posting.

In a free posting situation, the owners of the board allow anyone to post anything without any moderation whatsoever. In a legal case, they have some protection because they have a policy to not interfere with what anyone posts, true or untrue, libelous or not. However, depending on how the site is run, a reasonable person might decide that what is posted is endorsed by the owner of the site, in which case there might be some liability for the board owners.

In a moderated site, such as this one, a potential plaintiff might claim that the board moderators were negligent if they do not correct a post that has incorrect or misleading information. Again, this would be determined by the "reasonable person standard." In other words, would a reasonable person believe that the moderators were negligent for allowing a post to stand without censure? In the case of this board, the disclaimer on sign in and the board policies and rules for posting would probably make it a difficult case for any plaintiff to successfully argue that the board moderators agreed with any particular poster's position.

In a censored board, all posts must be reviewed before they are posted. In this case, the board owners have greater potential liability because they are, at least in theory, approving each post made to the board.

As to liability for individual posters, I do not see much likelihood of success for any claim by someone that they were mislead by a prediction that a storm would be a fish when, in fact, it slammed into New York. The individual would have to show that their reliance on the prediction was reasonable, and that would be a very difficult standard to meet with all of the different official and non-official predictions out there.

The foregoing is general information only, not specific legal advice. No attorney/client relationship has been created or should be implied.

See--even lawyers worry about unreasonable reliance on things they post on the Internet and use disclaimers.

Thanks for the feedback and I'm glad you finally registered. Welcome! Your post basically agrees with my attorney's advice. Hopefully you're both right

[CrazyC83]

Miami Dade county is asking the feds for money to cover the expenses occurred by failed storm "Ernesto"..apparently,someone is upset because Ernesto wan't the storm the NWC said it was going to be..Isn't this what we're talking about??

Ernesto was pretty solid for someone who was afraid of the water...

[mitchell]

Miami Dade county is asking the feds for money to cover the expenses occurred by failed storm "Ernesto"..apparently,someone is upset because Ernesto wan't the storm the NWC said it was going to be..Isn't this what we're talking about??

There are many programs out there that allow local governments to seek reimbursement for many types of storm related expenses. This is not the same thing as "suing" In fact there are FEMA programs that can cover "emergency protective measures" that mean basically you get reimbursed for actions you took to avoid damage.

Seems to me the answer to the basic question is that individuals have been making weather forecasts, and blowing forecasts since the beginning of time and individuals have benefitted from good forecasts and been harmed by blown forecasts since the beginning of time (think agriculture, and shipping...) I've never heard of a successful lawsuit on the basis of a blown forecast I would think that this long constant precedent creates a huge legal burden on anyone who would attempt to sue for damages.

[hial2]

There are many programs out there that allow local governments to seek reimbursement for many types of storm related expenses. This is not the same thing as "suing" In fact there are FEMA programs that can cover "emergency protective measures" that mean basically you get reimbursed for actions you took to avoid damage.[/quote]

I understand that...however, my understanding is that the demand for reinbursment is due to the fact that the NHC allegedly "blew"the storm...in other words, money was spent on preparations that did not have to take place if the forecast had been accurate..

[Downdraft]

Like the man said, "Anyone can sue anybody for any reason." That's why we have lawyers, that's why we have judges and that's why we need legislation in this country protecting people from malicious, false and frankly stupid law suits. Something I might add the lawyers oppose happening. Once upon a time we went to court to seek justice now we go to seek money. Miami Dade county has no place to talk considering they received more FEMA money after hurricanes Charley, Francis and Jeanne than any other county including those that were directly impacted. FEMA will spend the next 10 years trying to get that back and good luck if they do. For an area that hardly received tropical storm force winds I find it sickening that they bellied up to the front of the trough like they did.

[Downdraft]

There are many programs out there that allow local governments to seek reimbursement for many types of storm related expenses. This is not the same thing as "suing" In fact there are FEMA programs that can cover "emergency protective measures" that mean basically you get reimbursed for actions you took to avoid damage.

I understand that...however, my understanding is that the demand for reinbursment is due to the fact that the NHC allegedly "blew"the storm...in other words, money was spent on preparations that did not have to take place if the forecast had been accurate..[/quote]

What you say is true if the Governor declared a state of emergency, which he did, AND the President signed a declaration of disaster which he did not. Without that local governments can go to Tallahassee for relief but they won't get it from big daddy Warbucks.

[BocaGirl]

There are many programs out there that allow local governments to seek reimbursement for many types of storm related expenses. This is not the same thing as "suing" In fact there are FEMA programs that can cover "emergency protective measures" that mean basically you get reimbursed for actions you took to avoid damage.

I understand that...however, my understanding is that the demand for reinbursment is due to the fact that the NHC allegedly "blew"the storm...in other words, money was spent on preparations that did not have to take place if the forecast had been accurate..

What you say is true if the Governor declared a state of emergency, which he did, AND the President signed a declaration of disaster which he did not. Without that local governments can go to Tallahassee for relief but they won't get it from big daddy Warbucks.[/quote]

Man oh man, this really frosts me! While forecasting has gotten better over the years, it's still far from perfect. IF Ernesto had intensified or lingered, the same folks that are crying foul now would have been kissing the shoes of the NHC.

It's hard to believe that the Miami-Dade folks are really thinking about a law suit. Killer question. If Miami "wins", who pays? An insurance company? The residents of other Florida communities? The NHC? No matter how I look at it, this suit is covered in wrong sauce. There are no winners. Everyone the law suit touches - directly or indirectly - loses something.

BocaGirl
Barbara

[Una]

Just so my last post is not misunderstood, I was speaking from experience.
I used to have moderated forums on one of my websites years ago.
After a couple years, I completely forgot about them.
In the intervening time, someone spammed them with slanderous comments about a company, and said company threatened me with a lawsuit.
I ended up just removing the forums, but I think it was worth it seeking proper legal advice.

Hope this clears up any confusion as to my motives.

[chadtm80]

Formerly a lurker, wanted to register for this post, only because it's the first one on which I have some knowledge. (I'm an attorney with several clients who have similar forums.)

Generally speaking, people can (and often do) sue for any reason whatsoever, good or bad case. While Uma's attorney is not completely incorrect, s/he was not completely correct either. There are generally three types of billboards: free posting, moderated posting, and censored posting.

In a free posting situation, the owners of the board allow anyone to post anything without any moderation whatsoever. In a legal case, they have some protection because they have a policy to not interfere with what anyone posts, true or untrue, libelous or not. However, depending on how the site is run, a reasonable person might decide that what is posted is endorsed by the owner of the site, in which case there might be some liability for the board owners.

In a moderated site, such as this one, a potential plaintiff might claim that the board moderators were negligent if they do not correct a post that has incorrect or misleading information. Again, this would be determined by the "reasonable person standard." In other words, would a reasonable person believe that the moderators were negligent for allowing a post to stand without censure? In the case of this board, the disclaimer on sign in and the board policies and rules for posting would probably make it a difficult case for any plaintiff to successfully argue that the board moderators agreed with any particular poster's position.

In a censored board, all posts must be reviewed before they are posted. In this case, the board owners have greater potential liability because they are, at least in theory, approving each post made to the board.

As to liability for individual posters, I do not see much likelihood of success for any claim by someone that they were mislead by a prediction that a storm would be a fish when, in fact, it slammed into New York. The individual would have to show that their reliance on the prediction was reasonable, and that would be a very difficult standard to meet with all of the different official and non-official predictions out there.

The foregoing is general information only, not specific legal advice. No attorney/client relationship has been created or should be implied.

See--even lawyers worry about unreasonable reliance on things they post on the Internet and use disclaimers.

Welcome JBK!! Glad you joined. Spot on to what Marshall and I have been informed of as well. All anyone can do these days is a lot of CYA