Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children From Nature-Deficit Disorder, Louv, Richard [best free novels txt] 📗

to guarantee their safety. The statute does not limit liability, however, in cases of “willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition or for injury suffered in any case where permission to enter for the above purpose was granted for a consideration other than the consideration.”

“Whatever that means,” Judge Thatcher might say, crossing his eyes.

Also, the statute does not protect landowners from being sued by “any persons who are expressly invited rather than merely permitted to come upon the premises by the landowner.” The statute doesn’t mention children specifically; that application is up to case law. But here’s one way to interpret the wording: a parent who invites kids to use the property or supervises their play (or whose own child invites another child over to play) is more vulnerable to lawsuit than a parent who doesn’t know who is on the property—or a parent who says “okay,” in a generalized fashion and looks the other way.

At this point, Judge Thatcher might sit back, adjust his spectacles, and conclude that he had slipped into another universe, not just another century.

True, different attorneys can look into this statute and tell different futures. Ultimately, liability is determined by the interpretation of a particular court, and the courts have been inconsistent, to say the least. For example, in 1979, a California judge in Santa Clara Valley ruled that the recreational use statute did not protect a property owner. In this case, a girl fell while riding her bike across a bridge on private property. Since she was not “recreating,” the landowner was found liable. Got that? In another case, however, a landowner was granted immunity when a child was injured climbing a tree on his property.

“Go forth and figure!” Judge Thatcher might exclaim.

Upon further contemplation, he might well consider leaving the bench to become a trial attorney. Scratching his muttonchops, he would begin to think—about Tom painting that fence, from a public sidewalk?—And about that incident at the cave—with his very daughter! Who owned that cave?

“Why, the very idea!” he might say. “Becky, come here. Right now. I want to ask you a few questions . . .”

Natural Tort Reform, and Other Remedies

As a powerful deterrent to natural play, fear of liability ranks right behind the bogeyman. One goal in the fourth frontier should be a nationwide review of laws governing private land and recreation, especially involving children. This review process should be public; it should invite parents, children, experts on child’s play, and others to offer testimonials. And it should be done with the goal of protecting both the child’s safety and the child’s right to natural play. It should focus on reducing the anxiety of parents and children—and the fear of lawyers that, even if only subconsciously, adds to modern barriers separating children from natural play. As part of this conversation, community associations should review their covenants to decide where they stand on the criminalization of nature play. Public governments should do the same. This issue is not only a question of the letter of the law, but also the spirit.

In the public domain, part of the solution is a change of official attitude. Many of the restrictions on kids’ play, particularly the environmental rules designed to protect nature, are rational, if applied with a sense of proportion. For example, rather than serving citations, or chasing kids away without explanation, park rangers could focus on nature education, teaching families and the young how to enjoy the outdoors without being destructive. Many rangers are doing these things already—when they are not understaffed and overwhelmed by other duties. But let’s be realistic. As long as cities continue to overdevelop housing tracts and underdevelop parks and other sites for natural play, our regional parks and beaches will be crushed by demand, necessitating ever more stringent enforcement. The ultimate remedies aren’t to lift the restrictions on endangered habitat, but to create or preserve more natural places to play—including the vacant lots and ravines and backyards of our own neighborhoods—and to reduce private vulnerability to lawsuits and fines.

One way to confront the litigious barriers to natural play is to create more naturally landscaped public parks and more heavily insured private play spaces. These would be, essentially, legally protected, natural-play reservations—something like the Crestridge Reserve. Environment-based education expert David Sobel proposes the creation of what he calls “environmental sacrifice zones.” Play reservations, if you will. “It’s good to have streams where kids can dam and obstruct the ecosystem; the nature of that play is more important, and worth it to the environment in the long term,” he says. “Kids aren’t supposed to play on the dunes, because that creates erosion, which undermines the foundations of houses along the shore. But some dunes ought to be accessible for dune play, even though a bit of damage might occur as a result. When I say that, people roll their eyes. You can make that same argument about tree houses, which undeniably damage the tree, but that occasional damage to a tree is not as important as what children learn when playing in that tree.”

Even with the creation of many such play areas, families and neighborhoods will still face an array of laws, regulations, and private restrictions on outdoor play; but options exist.

A private neighborhood could potentially overcome liability issues by following the lead of the Skate Park Association of the USA, a group started by a Santa Monica mom in 1996. Let’s say a skate park joins the organization. The fee is currently $40 a year for private parks and $120 a year for city parks. Individual skaters sign up for a nominal fee. In return, the skater receives $100,000 excess medical coverage while in a sanctioned park or anywhere else, and $1,000,000 liability insurance in the park. This arrangement suggests interesting possibilities for more natural play: the Sierra Club or some other major environmental organization could someday offer a similar group insurance policy.

Another option is that every family, with or without children, consider