6 ms·

Summary -- there are public lands in the US that supposedly belong to us all, but private landowners have literally "enclosed" them by encircling them with priv

Summary -- there are public lands in the US that supposedly belong to us all, but private landowners have literally "enclosed" them by encircling them with privately owned plots. It's legal to BE on the public land, but it's not legal to trespass on private land. So unless you can magically teleport onto the public land, you have to trespass to get there. This allows private landowners to effectively hoard public land for themselves even though they don't own it, because only they can access it. The catch is "corner crossing" -- stepping diagonally OVER the property boundary from public land to public land, avoiding the ajoining private parcels. However, it's legally ambiguous in some areas whether you are violating the "air rights" of the private lands as your foot glides over them without ever actually setting foot on the dirt. In Norway this would all be obviated by the "right to roam" law that states that anyone may move freely through privately owned land so long as: - It is uncultivated - You don't leave any mess/trash - You don't stay more than one night if you camp

CubsFan1060 4y ago
In Norway, if you tripped and broke your ankle on the landowners land, could you sue them?
- magicalhippo 4y ago
  Not unless you tripped due to a tripwire set by the landowner, or similar edge cases like that.
  - CubsFan1060 4y ago
    That's part of the problem in the US. Hunter tripped on a branch? That's a lawsuit!
    - uncletaco 4y ago
      There are virtually zero situations where a landowner is liable for the injury of trespassers in the middle of nowhere.
      - mh- 4y ago
        I don't agree with "exactly zero", but it's frequently overstated and the "tripped on a branch" situation is definitely not a concern. However, "attractive nuisance" has gone pretty far, at least here in California. edit: I think the parent commenter edited their comment, but I'll leave mine as-is.
        uncletaco 4y ago
        I didn't edit the comment. You read it how you wanted to.
        mh- 4y ago
        No need to be rude, I just thought "exactly zero" was a quote when you apparently wrote "virtually zero".
        IncRnd 4y ago
        How was your parent poster rude? The poster seemed simply to be stating a fact.
        uncletaco 4y ago
        It's not rude for me say it's not me, it's you.
      - flandish 4y ago
        Except that is not true, at all. You’d like it to be, logically, but if a trespasser (even if they are not aware they are) trips off a poorly maintained trail or an old rock wall, or etc … the landowner will be in court. If it can happen when a thief breaks into your house and breaks his leg.. it can happen in the woods. Of course: depending on state, etc.
        uncletaco 4y ago
        In the case I'm thinking of, where it's a large tract of vacant unimproved land, thats not true at all. There are no trails or rock walls to speak of. There's no house. It's just land. If you can find a case where this happened I'd love to read about it.
- pgalvin 4y ago
  Cannot speak for this exact scenario, but generally in western and northern Europe (the only places I am familiar enough with) there doesn’t exist the culture of suing that the US has gained a reputation for - deserved or not.
- kzrdude 4y ago
  Could you sue them in the US? Let's say you asked and got permission, "can we trek through your forest", first.
  - judge2020 4y ago
    In the west, there's a 'duty of care', in which you must keep your facilities reasonably safe, but typically the prerequisite is EITHER (A) implicitly inviting people onto your property or (B) specifically inviting people onto your property (via advertisement, word of mouth, etc). If this duty of care is breached and someone suffers injury because of that, the property owner can be sued for damages like medical expenses. Scenario B is the most common scenario in that you shouldn't have to be worried about stepping on nails or tripping over things if you go to your local ikea. Scenario A is more state-by-state, but at least in my state (Georgia), you can "imply invite" people onto your property for something as small as having an opening in a fence on your land, or a beaten pathway that seems to be frequented by dirt bikes - this is why 'no trespassing' signs are commonplace, so that you know that the property owner does not invite you onto their land and thus any injuries are at your own expense.
  - jorts 4y ago
    Yes
  - CubsFan1060 4y ago
    Great question! The real answer is "you can always sue anyone for anything, but you may not win". But, since this is about Wyoming, let's see... https://law.justia.com/codes/wyoming/2016/title-34/chapter-19/article-1/section-34-19-103 https://law.justia.com/codes/wyoming/2016/title-34/chapter-1... As a non-lawyer, I'd say they have no liability. As a landowner, I'd never personally chance it, but I would see if I could give a 6' portion of the land to the state/federal government.
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  I would think universal healthcare would take the wind out of the sails of a lot of injury lawsuits.
  - Brian_K_White 4y ago
    no idea why this is downvoted
    - hotpotamus 4y ago
      It happens sometimes and I try and mostly succeed not to get too worried about it. But this is definitely one of my pet theories as to the litigiousness of America - healthcare is exceptionally expensive and in theory someone gets stuck with the bill, so when someone (especially someone without insurance) gets injured the game begins. I saw it personally on an uninsured friend who's arm bones were broken into pieces by a car wreck through no fault of his own. He was put back together pretty well, but to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars. There are other reasons to sue for injury, but it would be nice to think that they aren't so the injured person is able to escape bankruptcy from medical debt.
      - Brian_K_White 4y ago
        Yeah it seems like, it doesn't automatically solve all problems, but the comment made no such grand claims. I don't see how "take the wind out of a lot of injury suits" is even controversial.
- porknubbins 4y ago
  I don’t think you could in general in the US either. If you grant someone easement you might have a duty to do basic things like not make concealed traps that could hurt them. Fear of litigation is just another excuse to keep land private.
- callalex 4y ago
  Why bother when the healthcare is already free?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Wowfunhappy 4y ago
> Summary -- there are public lands in the US that supposedly belong to us all, but private landowners have literally "enclosed" them by encircling them with privately owned plots. It's legal to BE on the public land, but it's not legal to trespass on private land. So unless you can magically teleport onto the public land, you have to trespass to get there Just because I'm curious: could you parachute in? From a plane flying high enough to be in public airspace.
- coffeebeqn 4y ago
  Or fly a helicopter in?
- fintechjock 4y ago
  Yes, but then there is the problem of getting out
  - rolenthedeep 4y ago
    Easy, sue the surrounding landowners for entrapment or kidnapping Equally as frivolous as suing people for trespassing on public land
  - daurnimator 4y ago
    Just stay until you get arrested for trespassing and "escorted" out.
22289d 4y ago
You and others are attributing ill intent to the landowners that I did not read in the article. While it is true they receive that benefit from this situation, they aren't the ones who created it. They didn't decide which land to make public and which to make private. They are simply playing the hand they've been dealt.
- c54 4y ago
  This would be true if lobbyists didn’t exist. Too often those who benefit from the status quo masquerade under a pretense of helplessness while using their position to place a toe on the scales. I’m curious though, are you in the category of benefiting landowner? Or coming to their defense in the name of something else?
  - 22289d 4y ago
    I came to the defense of the truth. I read the whole article and I read nothing in it that would suggest the land owners have the ill intent that many attribute to them. It seems to be an assumption people quickly jump to but it's not in the article.
    - robocat 4y ago
      The article mentions one person with major ill intent: The hunters who used a ladder to corner-cross in Wyoming now face a civil lawsuit from the owner of the private land whose airspace they stepped through, in addition to the original criminal trespass charge. Their criminal case, currently set for April 14th, will take place in a local court and therefore will not establish legal precedent. However, on March 31st, a judge ordered for their civil case (that is, the one brought by the landowner) to be moved to federal district court, where the outcome could serve as precedent in future cases. Whatever comes next, this legal gray area could very well remain clear as fog for decades to come.
      - 22289d 4y ago
        I think you're making an assumption of ill intent. That or you're relying on information that is not in the quote you just provided. Pressing charges for using a ladder to corner-cross does not by itself indicate ill intent. At least to me. Why did they press charges for that? What was their intent in doing so?
nullc 4y ago
> there are public lands in the US that supposedly belong to us all, but private landowners have literally "enclosed" them by encircling them with privately owned plots. Bad summary. The private land owners didn't create this checkboard mess, the government did.

CubsFan1060 4y ago

In Norway, if you tripped and broke your ankle on the landowners land, could you sue them?

magicalhippo 4y ago
Not unless you tripped due to a tripwire set by the landowner, or similar edge cases like that.
- CubsFan1060 4y ago
  That's part of the problem in the US. Hunter tripped on a branch? That's a lawsuit!
  - uncletaco 4y ago
    There are virtually zero situations where a landowner is liable for the injury of trespassers in the middle of nowhere.
    - mh- 4y ago
      I don't agree with "exactly zero", but it's frequently overstated and the "tripped on a branch" situation is definitely not a concern. However, "attractive nuisance" has gone pretty far, at least here in California. edit: I think the parent commenter edited their comment, but I'll leave mine as-is.
      - uncletaco 4y ago
        I didn't edit the comment. You read it how you wanted to.
        mh- 4y ago
        No need to be rude, I just thought "exactly zero" was a quote when you apparently wrote "virtually zero".
        IncRnd 4y ago
        How was your parent poster rude? The poster seemed simply to be stating a fact.
        uncletaco 4y ago
        It's not rude for me say it's not me, it's you.
    - flandish 4y ago
      Except that is not true, at all. You’d like it to be, logically, but if a trespasser (even if they are not aware they are) trips off a poorly maintained trail or an old rock wall, or etc … the landowner will be in court. If it can happen when a thief breaks into your house and breaks his leg.. it can happen in the woods. Of course: depending on state, etc.
      - uncletaco 4y ago
        In the case I'm thinking of, where it's a large tract of vacant unimproved land, thats not true at all. There are no trails or rock walls to speak of. There's no house. It's just land. If you can find a case where this happened I'd love to read about it.
pgalvin 4y ago
Cannot speak for this exact scenario, but generally in western and northern Europe (the only places I am familiar enough with) there doesn’t exist the culture of suing that the US has gained a reputation for - deserved or not.
kzrdude 4y ago
Could you sue them in the US? Let's say you asked and got permission, "can we trek through your forest", first.
- judge2020 4y ago
  In the west, there's a 'duty of care', in which you must keep your facilities reasonably safe, but typically the prerequisite is EITHER (A) implicitly inviting people onto your property or (B) specifically inviting people onto your property (via advertisement, word of mouth, etc). If this duty of care is breached and someone suffers injury because of that, the property owner can be sued for damages like medical expenses. Scenario B is the most common scenario in that you shouldn't have to be worried about stepping on nails or tripping over things if you go to your local ikea. Scenario A is more state-by-state, but at least in my state (Georgia), you can "imply invite" people onto your property for something as small as having an opening in a fence on your land, or a beaten pathway that seems to be frequented by dirt bikes - this is why 'no trespassing' signs are commonplace, so that you know that the property owner does not invite you onto their land and thus any injuries are at your own expense.
- jorts 4y ago
  Yes
- CubsFan1060 4y ago
  Great question! The real answer is "you can always sue anyone for anything, but you may not win". But, since this is about Wyoming, let's see... https://law.justia.com/codes/wyoming/2016/title-34/chapter-19/article-1/section-34-19-103 https://law.justia.com/codes/wyoming/2016/title-34/chapter-1... As a non-lawyer, I'd say they have no liability. As a landowner, I'd never personally chance it, but I would see if I could give a 6' portion of the land to the state/federal government.
hotpotamus 4y ago
I would think universal healthcare would take the wind out of the sails of a lot of injury lawsuits.
- Brian_K_White 4y ago
  no idea why this is downvoted
  - hotpotamus 4y ago
    It happens sometimes and I try and mostly succeed not to get too worried about it. But this is definitely one of my pet theories as to the litigiousness of America - healthcare is exceptionally expensive and in theory someone gets stuck with the bill, so when someone (especially someone without insurance) gets injured the game begins. I saw it personally on an uninsured friend who's arm bones were broken into pieces by a car wreck through no fault of his own. He was put back together pretty well, but to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars. There are other reasons to sue for injury, but it would be nice to think that they aren't so the injured person is able to escape bankruptcy from medical debt.
    - Brian_K_White 4y ago
      Yeah it seems like, it doesn't automatically solve all problems, but the comment made no such grand claims. I don't see how "take the wind out of a lot of injury suits" is even controversial.
porknubbins 4y ago
I don’t think you could in general in the US either. If you grant someone easement you might have a duty to do basic things like not make concealed traps that could hurt them. Fear of litigation is just another excuse to keep land private.
callalex 4y ago
Why bother when the healthcare is already free?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Wowfunhappy 4y ago

> Summary -- there are public lands in the US that supposedly belong to us all, but private landowners have literally "enclosed" them by encircling them with privately owned plots. It's legal to BE on the public land, but it's not legal to trespass on private land. So unless you can magically teleport onto the public land, you have to trespass to get there Just because I'm curious: could you parachute in? From a plane flying high enough to be in public airspace.

coffeebeqn 4y ago
Or fly a helicopter in?
fintechjock 4y ago
Yes, but then there is the problem of getting out
- rolenthedeep 4y ago
  Easy, sue the surrounding landowners for entrapment or kidnapping Equally as frivolous as suing people for trespassing on public land
- daurnimator 4y ago
  Just stay until you get arrested for trespassing and "escorted" out.

22289d 4y ago

You and others are attributing ill intent to the landowners that I did not read in the article. While it is true they receive that benefit from this situation, they aren't the ones who created it. They didn't decide which land to make public and which to make private. They are simply playing the hand they've been dealt.

c54 4y ago
This would be true if lobbyists didn’t exist. Too often those who benefit from the status quo masquerade under a pretense of helplessness while using their position to place a toe on the scales. I’m curious though, are you in the category of benefiting landowner? Or coming to their defense in the name of something else?
- 22289d 4y ago
  I came to the defense of the truth. I read the whole article and I read nothing in it that would suggest the land owners have the ill intent that many attribute to them. It seems to be an assumption people quickly jump to but it's not in the article.
  - robocat 4y ago
    The article mentions one person with major ill intent: The hunters who used a ladder to corner-cross in Wyoming now face a civil lawsuit from the owner of the private land whose airspace they stepped through, in addition to the original criminal trespass charge. Their criminal case, currently set for April 14th, will take place in a local court and therefore will not establish legal precedent. However, on March 31st, a judge ordered for their civil case (that is, the one brought by the landowner) to be moved to federal district court, where the outcome could serve as precedent in future cases. Whatever comes next, this legal gray area could very well remain clear as fog for decades to come.
    - 22289d 4y ago
      I think you're making an assumption of ill intent. That or you're relying on information that is not in the quote you just provided. Pressing charges for using a ladder to corner-cross does not by itself indicate ill intent. At least to me. Why did they press charges for that? What was their intent in doing so?

nullc 4y ago

> there are public lands in the US that supposedly belong to us all, but private landowners have literally "enclosed" them by encircling them with privately owned plots. Bad summary. The private land owners didn't create this checkboard mess, the government did.