5 ms·

I'm interested to read more about the "personal property liability" thing in the US. I have never heard anyone explain why your example would expose you to liab

I'm interested to read more about the "personal property liability" thing in the US. I have never heard anyone explain why your example would expose you to liability. There are other things I can imagine, like unfenced swimming pools or open sinkholes that you knew about, but tree roots and general features of the land? Maybe there's a long history of case law about this.

dboreham 2y ago
FUD
devmor 2y ago
I am not a legal scholar, but anecdotally a common theme in US law is that if you don't make obvious attempts to stop someone from doing something with your property (be it land, objects or intellectual property) then you are tacitly approving it. The most well known example is probably Trademark Erosion. Given this theme, it's not hard to see how a judge could rule that if you allow a lot of people to traverse your land, you are inherently maintaining a passageway and are thus responsible for ensuring its safety.
- b112 2y ago
  In Toronto Canada, the Eaton's center, which people walk through to get to other streets, closes once per year for this very reason.
crazygringo 2y ago
Basically just think of it as a continuum from things you're obviously responsible for (a child drowns in your pool because you didn't put up a fence), to things you're obviously not (somebody fell and broke a bone because they tripped over a tree root in your acres of backyard forest). That there's a big gray area in the middle, and that somebody can sue you if they're injured in that gray area, and even if they lose it's still expense and stress and a time suck for you.
- lambdaxyzw 2y ago
  >obviously responsible for (a child drowns in your pool because you didn't put up a fence) Does this also count if you didn't invite the child and the terrain was clearly marked as your property? If yes, this is pretty surprising and non-obvious to me. Do i misunderstand something? For me, the obvious example is bobby trapping your property and hurting a fireman who came to put out a fire.
  - cratermoon 2y ago
    In most of the US, the attractive nuisance doctrine applies, unfortunately. And nearly anything can be considered an attractive nuisance, or at least there's probably a lawyer out there willing to take the case and cost the landowner money.
    - b112 2y ago
      Quite so. I get doubly annoyed when people have heated pools by lakes, the lake is clearly not fenced, but that fence had better be on your pool. And many pools have a shallow end, and many homeowners have long docks, which are in deep water. Yet docks aren't required to be fenced here.
  - crazygringo 2y ago
    Yes, it absolutely does count. You might indeed consider it non-obvious and surprising -- I certainly did when I first learned of it growing up here. Another classic example is that a thief can sue you if they fall through rotting floorboards on your porch and break their legs. But we've collectively decided, as a society, that property owners are not just prohibited from booby trapping their properties, but are required to actively maintain them in a safe condition according to reasonable standards. If there's something a reasonable person would know was a safety risk on their property, they'll be held liable if they didn't fix it and somebody injured themselves because of it. The thinking is basically -- kids will run around onto other people's property, people get lost, etc. We know kids go where they're not supposed to. Nobody should be risking injury or death just because of that, if and when reasonable safety precautions by the property owner could have prevented that. In other words, we live in a society, and we have a certain minimal level of active duty of care towards others. Owning a piece of property comes with rights but also responsibilities.
LorenPechtel 2y ago
Open holes that you know about are one of the issues with the Colorado peaks. There are old mineshafts up there. The owners put up signs, they get torn down. There's an interesting (slot canyon) local hike that's a good example. The whole situation is a mess, it's an old non-operating mine grandfathered inside what's now a national recreation area. Seems some years ago somebody's car was damaged (not exactly astounding, you need a 4x4 HCV and know how to drive it to get there.) Since it happened on private property their insurance tried to go after the landowner. For years it was posted as no trespassing although some groups still did sneak in. Then there was a period of a few years where it wasn't posted and we (local hiking community) believed it was accessible (nope--flash flood took out the signs and gate.) I went with one such group. There were a couple of mineshafts in the side of the canyon, imperfectly blocked by chain link fencing. Once glance inside was plenty to make me NOPE! it but some of the group squirmed in anyway. After seeing that I completely understand why the owner denies access. While I in general support a right to roam it needs to come with extremely strong liability protections. There are too many idiots out there who do not respect that nobody's combing the land for hazards, nor is it even possible as they may change. (There was a case a while back, trespassing IIRC biker got hurt because a flash flood had taken out the paved road he was on. Owner liable.)

dboreham 2y ago

FUD

devmor 2y ago

I am not a legal scholar, but anecdotally a common theme in US law is that if you don't make obvious attempts to stop someone from doing something with your property (be it land, objects or intellectual property) then you are tacitly approving it. The most well known example is probably Trademark Erosion. Given this theme, it's not hard to see how a judge could rule that if you allow a lot of people to traverse your land, you are inherently maintaining a passageway and are thus responsible for ensuring its safety.

b112 2y ago
In Toronto Canada, the Eaton's center, which people walk through to get to other streets, closes once per year for this very reason.

crazygringo 2y ago

Basically just think of it as a continuum from things you're obviously responsible for (a child drowns in your pool because you didn't put up a fence), to things you're obviously not (somebody fell and broke a bone because they tripped over a tree root in your acres of backyard forest). That there's a big gray area in the middle, and that somebody can sue you if they're injured in that gray area, and even if they lose it's still expense and stress and a time suck for you.

lambdaxyzw 2y ago
>obviously responsible for (a child drowns in your pool because you didn't put up a fence) Does this also count if you didn't invite the child and the terrain was clearly marked as your property? If yes, this is pretty surprising and non-obvious to me. Do i misunderstand something? For me, the obvious example is bobby trapping your property and hurting a fireman who came to put out a fire.
- cratermoon 2y ago
  In most of the US, the attractive nuisance doctrine applies, unfortunately. And nearly anything can be considered an attractive nuisance, or at least there's probably a lawyer out there willing to take the case and cost the landowner money.
  - b112 2y ago
    Quite so. I get doubly annoyed when people have heated pools by lakes, the lake is clearly not fenced, but that fence had better be on your pool. And many pools have a shallow end, and many homeowners have long docks, which are in deep water. Yet docks aren't required to be fenced here.
- crazygringo 2y ago
  Yes, it absolutely does count. You might indeed consider it non-obvious and surprising -- I certainly did when I first learned of it growing up here. Another classic example is that a thief can sue you if they fall through rotting floorboards on your porch and break their legs. But we've collectively decided, as a society, that property owners are not just prohibited from booby trapping their properties, but are required to actively maintain them in a safe condition according to reasonable standards. If there's something a reasonable person would know was a safety risk on their property, they'll be held liable if they didn't fix it and somebody injured themselves because of it. The thinking is basically -- kids will run around onto other people's property, people get lost, etc. We know kids go where they're not supposed to. Nobody should be risking injury or death just because of that, if and when reasonable safety precautions by the property owner could have prevented that. In other words, we live in a society, and we have a certain minimal level of active duty of care towards others. Owning a piece of property comes with rights but also responsibilities.

LorenPechtel 2y ago

Open holes that you know about are one of the issues with the Colorado peaks. There are old mineshafts up there. The owners put up signs, they get torn down. There's an interesting (slot canyon) local hike that's a good example. The whole situation is a mess, it's an old non-operating mine grandfathered inside what's now a national recreation area. Seems some years ago somebody's car was damaged (not exactly astounding, you need a 4x4 HCV and know how to drive it to get there.) Since it happened on private property their insurance tried to go after the landowner. For years it was posted as no trespassing although some groups still did sneak in. Then there was a period of a few years where it wasn't posted and we (local hiking community) believed it was accessible (nope--flash flood took out the signs and gate.) I went with one such group. There were a couple of mineshafts in the side of the canyon, imperfectly blocked by chain link fencing. Once glance inside was plenty to make me NOPE! it but some of the group squirmed in anyway. After seeing that I completely understand why the owner denies access. While I in general support a right to roam it needs to come with extremely strong liability protections. There are too many idiots out there who do not respect that nobody's combing the land for hazards, nor is it even possible as they may change. (There was a case a while back, trespassing IIRC biker got hurt because a flash flood had taken out the paved road he was on. Owner liable.)