Special Note: Please note that this paper may not be republished.  You are welcome to provide links to this page or to use short quotations and paraphrases in other documents as long as they appropriately reference the authors and source. If you wish to reproduce or publish extensive parts or all of this paper, please contact the ISU Outdoor Program (wattron@isu.edu).

Paper History: Presented at 1982 NECAA National Convention, Chicago, Illinois, February 17-21, 1982.

Editor's Note:  In this paper Tom Whittaker describes the state of Common Adventure programs nearly a decade after the concept was first suggested.
 
 

THE SAUSAGE PRINCIPLE:  People who love sausage and respect the law should never watch either one being made.
 

Common adventure outdoor programs began in the late 1960s at Portland State University (OR). Rather than originating from any clear philosophical aims, the programs' founders were responding negatively to "establishment" programs such as outing club trips.  The idea of a "wilderness cooperative" where people could meet, share dreams and then work collectively toward realizing these dreams was instantly embraced by students and staff alike and indeed, was part of a whole trend toward working and living collectives.

This idea was subsequently taken by Gary Grimm to the University of Oregon/Eugene and by H.S. Hilbert to Idaho State University/Pocatello.  They expanded the wilderness cooperative to include a resource center with a library and audio-visual equipment, maps, magazines and an open file system full of accessible information on topics ranging from Dutch-oven cooking to what to do if a grizzly bear starts making romantic overtures!  In the next decade another 60 outdoor programs were developed in the West and Northwest, the majority of which are based on the common outdoor adventure model.

Central to the functioning of a common adventure outdoor program is the "trip board." For example, if students want to go backpacking for the weekend, they can post a trip sheet on the board with details of the backpacking trip and identify a time and place for a trip meeting.  This sheet provided by the trip center, would carry a printed disclaimer stating that anyone participating in the trip should acquaint themselves with potential dangers, be properly prepared and take total responsibility for themselves.  Below the disclaimer the trip sheet provides several spaces for people to sign up by leaving their names, addresses, and telephone numbers.

Another common denominator of common adventure programs is a pre-trip meeting during which expectations, safety, equipment, previous experiences and cost sharing are discussed.  This meeting also provides an opportunity for participants to explore whether they will feel comfortable with the folks who are going to become members of the outing.  Compromises are made during this process, and at this stage the trip stops becoming the originator's idea and becomes "our trip."

The outdoor program staff members encourage common sense, shared responsibility and an open environment for facilitating ideas.  Thus, the outdoor program office can become a congenial place to eat one's lunch and leaf through a climbing magazine or a place where an eight-person expedition can be launched to kayak the Yangtze River in China.

The outdoor program office ideally can serve other purposes as well.  A committed staff person can facilitate important environmental projects.  At the University of Oregon, a staff person led a group of students in successfully removing more than 60 tons of garbage from the banks of the Salmon River and at Idaho State University in Pocatello, a letter writing campaign was initiated to assist in securing the 2.2 million acres of wilderness land that comprises Idaho's River of No Return Wilderness.  Staff and students participants in the common adventure outdoor program at Idaho State University have been involved in widely differing community service projects, including several search and rescue missions, using specialized knowledge, expertise and resources that were not available from any other agency in the area.  They also financed costs incurred during a search for an "overdue" backpacker, and through a group who called themselves The Cooperative Wilderness Handicapped Outdoor Group, low-cost outdoor recreation and education is provided for a part of the community whose recreational needs are largely neglected.

Let us discuss what the courts might have to say about common adventure programs.  There is in the law what is called the doctrine of joint adventure or joint enterprises which can protect an institution from liability for injury to a participant in an outdoor recreation program.  It must be recognized, however, that the law is quite specific about what is deemed a joint adventure; therefore, it would be critical to review the program, its organization and operation with legal counsel.  Again, the law is not uniform among all states, so common adventure programs, as described in this paper, can only serve as a partial model.

Programmers should be aware of some general factors to keep in mind when planning common outdoor adventure programs.  "Joint enterprise" requires more than simply a group of people doing the same thing.  They must share a common interest in the purpose or object of the activity and most importantly, each must have an equal right to direct and to control the actions of the group.

The law today overwhelmingly recognizes that all members of a joint enterprise are equally responsible for the negligence of one of its members, but the law does not overwhelmingly recognize that all outdoor recreation programs constitute joint enterprises.  This is where knowledge of the law is particularly important in setting up a common adventure outdoor program.

It could also be said that the amount of protection a program can gain from legal liability is directly proportional to the time the program takes educating its participants to the dangers and correct safety procedures involved in that activity.  However, if such training was done improperly or incorrectly, the institution would be creating a significant potential liability.  It is therefore critical to hire competent and knowledgeable staff to teach outdoor skills.

Common outdoor adventure programs which are properly organized encourage personal adventure, are the most economically feasible for students, are educationally and recreationally sound--and surprisingly, most likely to be exempt from liability problems.
 

AVOIDING PITFALLS

The first step in providing a common adventure outdoor program is to create a clear operational and philosophical base which incorporated the judicially defined elements of the common adventure.  It is worth emphasizing that the program must be operated as well as designed in accordance with these elements.  By doing this, an administrator can rest assured that he has done everything within his power to make the legal defense of common adventure available to his institution should it be needed.  As well, such precautions will protect the school employee or other organizer of such programs from personal liability.

If activity programmers are committed to common adventure outdoor programs because of their educational and recreational value, they will choose to accept responsibility for any potential risks by taking every opportunity to minimize the participants' actual danger to an acceptable level.  The next essential element, then, is to employ a coordinator who has a demonstrated commitment both to the outdoors and to the education of young people, as well as a friendly, approachable style.

The program will ultimately become an expression of the coordinator's vision and the ability to facilitate the dreams of others.  Academic or professional qualifications may pale to insignificance when weighted against these qualities in common adventure outdoor programming.  The moral being:  pay a realistic salary, attract the right caliber of person and save yourself an appearance in front of the Bar!

The philosophy of common adventure programs demands that the staff person must be flexible and willing to work as a group member.  Like caring for a delicate house plant, knowing exactly when to stop pampering it is as important to outdoor programming as knowing when to husband it.  This is largely because people who go on wilderness trips are often trying to escape the structure and pace of society, outdoor programs which mirror these structures may discourage and irritate some students.

For the institution's and individual's protections it is important to identify the philosophical and legal foundations of outdoor adventure programs, publish a statement including these principles in the university's student handbook, and post the statement in the outdoor program's office.  The statement should be approved by the institution's attorney.

As well, the staff person needs to spend considerable time informing any workstudy personnel of their obligations to participants and to the institution.  Any employees who help to organize or facilitate these programs must be fully aware of what constitutes negligence, what legally constitutes common adventure and what things they should do or not do to maintain the program's common adventure status.

Employees should also be well informed about the difference in the standard of care required on a common adventure trips vs. a workshop advertised to teach novices specific skills.  This is doubly important because the very existence of an outdoor program invites the public to assume that the school has a body of expertise which will protect them from danger, especially if the trip is initiated by an employee.

The manner in which we view outdoor programming is a direct reflection of how we view our role as campus activities professionals.  Should we not make it our duty to offer creative outdoor programming which facilitates significant individual growth.

As an advocate of common adventure outdoor programs would be easy to make extravagant claims about the benefits derived by students, staff and faculty from participating in the kinds of recreational activity promoted by such a program.  It would be appropriate, however, to site the Third Nation-wide Outdoor Recreational Plan, produced by the U.S. Department of the Interior and Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service.  The report defined recreation as "an emotional state or condition that Lows from a feeling of well-being and self-satisfaction, and is characterized by feelings of mastery, achievement, exhilaration, acceptance, success, personal worth and pleasure."  The same report went on to identify some positive advantages of outdoor recreation such as "relief from stress, increased productivity, physical and mental fitness, and reduction of anxiety and boredom . . . .  A recent study has produced detailed medical findings linking physical fitness to high motivation, persistence, learning achievement, self-confidence and social acceptance."  Such ends are certainly justified within the realm of campus activities and can be financed by the addition of a couple more electronic games machines in the lobby of your Student Union Building!
 

Additional Resources

Prosser, William L.  The Law of Torts, 4th ed. St. Paul, Minnesota:  West Publishing Company, 1971, pps. 143 and 324.

Wyman, Richard.  "A Memorandum Regarding the Tort Liability of Self Directing University Outdoor Wilderness Programs."  University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon
 

Topics:

Common Adventurer Immunity, see Murphy v. Hutzel 21 Fed Supp 473 (1939)

Common Carrier Liability, see revised state statutes

Duty in Extracurricular Activities, see 38 ALR 3rd 912; also 38 ALR 3rd 852; also, Rubtchinsky v. S.U.N.Y. 46 Misc. 2d 679, 26O, NYS 2d 256 (1965)

Express Waivers of Liability:  The Law of Torts, 4th ed., by William L. Prosser, p. 440; also see, Section 496 Restatement Torts 2nd

Joint Enterprise, see 38 ALR 844; also 6 Am Jur 2d "Associations and Clubs" Section 32

Standard of Care, see: Whipple v. Salvation Army, 94 Or Adv Sh 859 (1972)

Volenti Non Fit Injuria (No Wrong Is Done to One Who Consents), see:  Section 496 Restatement Torts 2d; also, Murphy v. Steeplechase Amusement Company, Inc., 166 NE 173 (1929)
 

[END]