More on the "Leave No Child Inside Legal Defense Fund" concept

(Idea first discussed here and here). Here are the two quotes from the updated version of Last Child in the Woods, from a discussion of legal reform to reduce liability concerns that keep kids away from nature:

While we wait for legal reform, environmental attorney Brian Schmidt has an idea that just might help....To liberate natural play, he suggests creation of what he calls a "Leave No Child Inside Legal Defense Fund," a foundation that would pay the legal costs of select institutions and individuals who encourage children to go outdoors but are then hit with frivolous lawsuits. Volunteer lawyers for the Defense Fund would focus on the most frivolous, high-profile claims, or those claims that would establish the worst precedents. He suspects that the outdoor industries would be interested in funding such an organization. 'Obviously, regardless of how successful this idea could become, it will never cover all the costs of defending against frivolous lawsuits,' he adds. 'Still it could help, and just the fact that a defendant knew it was possible to recover costs might make the defendant less likely to settle.' It would also send a public message that natural play is still valued.

(page 243)

Also in the chapter "100 Actions We Can Take":

67. ....Create a Leave No Child Inside legal defense fund that would, using pro bono attorneys, help families and organizations fight egregious lawsuits that restrict children's play in nature and bring media attention to the issues.

(page 377)

To reinforce something I wrote earlier, I think it would be simplest for the legal fund to simply review completed legal cases where defendants didn't cave in, select the best ones, and reimburse all or part of their legal costs. This would be relatively easy for pro-bono attorneys to handle. More complicated would be actually doing the litigation, as only a few attorneys or law firms have the resources to devote sufficient pro-bono time to run the suit. Maybe this would be possible at some point, though.

Another issue would be what types of defendants should be eligible. While one might argue against making wealthy liability insurance companies eligible for the rewards, I think we should reward them too for doing the right thing, and they likely represent the biggest number of cases. My suggestion would be to have the funds directed at three target groups in decreasing priority: nonprofits that get kids outside, for-profit businesses that do the same, and last the liability insurers that defend either of the first two groups.

My other suggestion is that insurers only get compensated if they attest that they won't raise insurance rates against the insuree that was hit with the frivolous suit.

A Backseat Driving idea makes it into print

This is pretty cool - two years ago, Richard Louv wrote the book, The Last Child in the Woods, about how children are increasingly denied unstructured access to nature. Last year, I wrote a post about how the fears of frivolous lawsuits that restrict children's access could be reduced through a "Leave No Child Inside Legal Defense Fund," something that pays the legal defense costs of institutions and individuals who brought children outdoors and then were hit with frivolous lawsuits.

Richard Louv has contacted me about the idea, and now it's in the second edition of his book, right on page 243 (appropriately credited). Still not a reality, but it's one step closer to being something real.

Best part of it was what I originally wrote, "I'll just toss this idea out into the Googleable universe" to see if anything happens, and it did.

So I'll just toss the idea out into the Googleable universe that I should be paid millions to blog my random thoughts here....

Suggesting the "Leave No Child Inside" Legal Defense Fund

I've been reading and hearing about Richard Louv, author of Last Child in the Woods and promoter of the Children and Nature Network, an organization that attempts to restore the lost connection between children and the outdoors.

One factor in this lost connection is the fear of liability should something go wrong. Part of that fear is overblown, but regardless, it's there.

I don't know if Louv has a solution to this problem, but I've got an idea that I think would help - set up a legal foundation that pays the legal defense costs of institutions and individuals who brought children outdoors and then were hit with frivolous lawsuits.

Obviously, regardless of how successful this idea could become, it will never cover all the costs of defending against all the frivolous lawsuits. Still it could help, and just the fact that a defendant knew it was possible to recover costs might make the defendant less likely to settle.

When it first starts functioning, it picks the cream of the crop - those who defended against the most frivolous of claims, and against the claims that would have established the worst precedents or had the worst potential impact. It could also assist only defendants who have already won their case, so the foundation doesn't have to do any legal work itself - it just pays all or part of defendant's legal costs afterwards. It only assists defendants who didn't settle the case. I also expect that businesses that support the outdoors would be interested in funding the foundation.

I'll just toss this idea out into the Googleable universe, with the additional mention that I'd be willing to put in some of my own money or time as a lawyer if the idea goes anywhere.