Taking Personal Responsibility to new lows.

WTP-GC wrote:

Lantley wrote:

WTP-GC wrote:
Why are you so concerned about needing an explanation for them to be on the hill?? By constantly wanting a reason for use of the hill, it's like you're looking for an an excuse to not take responsilbity for your property. (Yes, I know it's not your park). How is this any different than the reviewer not taking responsibility on their end?

Please share the name of your park so we don't visit it, for fear that if we leave the actual confine of our campsite that we might be chastised for doing so. Based on your position, I'm not sure how any campground can function with hiking trails or bike paths. Wille customer be required to submit to a full investigative inquiry if they got a splinter while not on their actual assigned campsite?

Your insurnace example is irrelevant. If you contend that this is not what insurance is for, then perhaps you can try to go a few years without it. Just roll the dice and hope that everyone stays within the boundaries of their campsite.

Once again, I fully acknowledged that the review is silly and sad, but c'mon now...

Insurance is for legitimate claims. It is not a free for all fund to be abused with false claims.
Unfortunately they are many bogus claims placed upon the system that we all pay for in the end.

Insurance is for the petty claims and serious claims and everything in between. In many cases, it's there to protect the insured from the petty. You pay those sometimes high premiums so that your insurance company can decide what's petty or serious...so that you don't have to be burdened by it. I don't disagree that insurance is for so-called legitimate claims, but sometimes it must be used for for the not-so legitimate. It's the nature of the beast.

But still, my point revolves around the irony of pointing out someone's supposed lack of responsibility by suggesting that they were somehow a rule-breaker for use of campground facilities (ie a hill). The attempt has been made to paint this hill as a highly difficult mountain ledge wrought with natural hazards. In reality, it's probably a gently sloping hill that campers normally play on everyday. No, it doesn't make the situation any better, but the OP shouldn't complain about someone's lack of responsibility by refusing to take responsibility on their own. My children act that way...

I agree insurance is there to protect the property owner.
However I believe the OP's gripe is: Is there negligence on the CG part or is the negligence on the camper's part?
Finding fault with the CG (giving a poor review) because the camper fell do to their own negligence/instability and no fault of the CG.
It's easy to point blame and attempt to find fault with the CG....they have an insurance policy.
Unfortunately too often we encourage people to test the limits/boundaries of insurance policies in hopes of hitting the jackpot. Even more disappointing is the fact that some feel this testing is acceptable behavior.