3 ms·

Would this be because the beach is deemed public, not private with a right to access it? To allow someone to sue a landowner on the beach would be confirming i

Would this be because the beach is deemed public, not private with a right to access it? To allow someone to sue a landowner on the beach would be confirming it is privately owned by the landowner, no?

estebank 2y ago
They are sued for blocking pre-existing access. Everyone, including those doing the blocking, acknowledge that the beach is public, but by blocking access they are trying to avoid people actually using it so they can enjoy it as if it were private.
- SkyBelow 2y ago
  I was speaking to the idea as to why these people haven't receives lawsuits about the injuries occurring to people on the beach. It is because the beaches are public, which means that it isn't an equivalent comparison to land that is private but which people might be given some sort of right to roam on.
duped 2y ago
I'm not sure the specific details of ownership, but the gist is that in California, everyone has a right to access the beach. Private land owners aren't entitled to blocking access to the beaches, even across their property. This court case has been going on for years over this (1) and the only reason it hasn't been tossed out is the billionaire who owns the land keeps paying lawyers to appeal. (1) https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/martins-beach-lawsuit-can-proceed-judge-rules-19457579.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/martins-beach-la...
everforward 2y ago
They mean on a person's way to the beach as they're crossing the private property. I.e. you park on the street and have to walk across a private yard to access the public beach, because there is no public walkway to get to the beach. If someone were to be injured while crossing that private yard to the beach, the owner of the yard could be liable. What happens on the beach is not the yard owners problem, because it's not their property and they have no duties related to it (other than not impeding other people crossing their property).
- SkyBelow 2y ago
  If they are being forced to allow access through private property, and injuries could occur on the private property, I do wonder why there hasn't been any cases? Are we sure it is private property and not some amount of reasonable public property allowed for access to the beach (which the owners might be pretending is private property and then being sued to allow access)? On a non-California beach I've been to, there are public access ways (about 20ft wide) between every 3 to 5 houses. The houses are free to block their own land, but they can't block the accessways, the beach, or the dunes because all of that is public property.
  - everforward 2y ago
    I would assume there have been cases, just not specifically about "tripping on a root". I can't actually substantiate that, though. The SEO of the "lawsuits about forcing public access to the beach" is really high, I can't find any lawsuits. I would assume there are some, even if the plaintiffs didn't win though? People in the US sue for everything. > On a non-California beach I've been to, there are public access ways (about 20ft wide) between every 3 to 5 houses. The houses are free to block their own land, but they can't block the accessways, the beach, or the dunes because all of that is public property. No, California went way farther than that. They mandated that the entire coastline up to the median high tide line (if I remember right), has public access in the 1974 California Coastal Act. In later court cases, the court ruled that if there is no feasible way to access that public area without crossing private property, private land owners must permit the public to cross their land to get to the coast. E.g. https://www.hcn.org/articles/public-lands-a-battle-over-beach-access-appeals-to-the-supreme-court/ https://www.hcn.org/articles/public-lands-a-battle-over-beac... is a recent case (the Supreme Court rejected his appeal) It's a little messy for older developments, but for new coastal developments the state requires the developer to sign an easement granting the public rights to use the land. I think there are a couple of beaches that are still holdouts due to various old-timey contractual things, but in general, you can walk across private property to access a beach behind someone's house if there isn't a feasible public route (I.e. you aren't expected to rock climb down a cliff instead or hire a boat, but you should use the public walkway if there is one).

estebank 2y ago

They are sued for blocking pre-existing access. Everyone, including those doing the blocking, acknowledge that the beach is public, but by blocking access they are trying to avoid people actually using it so they can enjoy it as if it were private.

SkyBelow 2y ago
I was speaking to the idea as to why these people haven't receives lawsuits about the injuries occurring to people on the beach. It is because the beaches are public, which means that it isn't an equivalent comparison to land that is private but which people might be given some sort of right to roam on.

duped 2y ago

I'm not sure the specific details of ownership, but the gist is that in California, everyone has a right to access the beach. Private land owners aren't entitled to blocking access to the beaches, even across their property. This court case has been going on for years over this (1) and the only reason it hasn't been tossed out is the billionaire who owns the land keeps paying lawyers to appeal. (1) https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/martins-beach-lawsuit-can-proceed-judge-rules-19457579.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/martins-beach-la...

everforward 2y ago

They mean on a person's way to the beach as they're crossing the private property. I.e. you park on the street and have to walk across a private yard to access the public beach, because there is no public walkway to get to the beach. If someone were to be injured while crossing that private yard to the beach, the owner of the yard could be liable. What happens on the beach is not the yard owners problem, because it's not their property and they have no duties related to it (other than not impeding other people crossing their property).

SkyBelow 2y ago
If they are being forced to allow access through private property, and injuries could occur on the private property, I do wonder why there hasn't been any cases? Are we sure it is private property and not some amount of reasonable public property allowed for access to the beach (which the owners might be pretending is private property and then being sued to allow access)? On a non-California beach I've been to, there are public access ways (about 20ft wide) between every 3 to 5 houses. The houses are free to block their own land, but they can't block the accessways, the beach, or the dunes because all of that is public property.
- everforward 2y ago
  I would assume there have been cases, just not specifically about "tripping on a root". I can't actually substantiate that, though. The SEO of the "lawsuits about forcing public access to the beach" is really high, I can't find any lawsuits. I would assume there are some, even if the plaintiffs didn't win though? People in the US sue for everything. > On a non-California beach I've been to, there are public access ways (about 20ft wide) between every 3 to 5 houses. The houses are free to block their own land, but they can't block the accessways, the beach, or the dunes because all of that is public property. No, California went way farther than that. They mandated that the entire coastline up to the median high tide line (if I remember right), has public access in the 1974 California Coastal Act. In later court cases, the court ruled that if there is no feasible way to access that public area without crossing private property, private land owners must permit the public to cross their land to get to the coast. E.g. https://www.hcn.org/articles/public-lands-a-battle-over-beach-access-appeals-to-the-supreme-court/ https://www.hcn.org/articles/public-lands-a-battle-over-beac... is a recent case (the Supreme Court rejected his appeal) It's a little messy for older developments, but for new coastal developments the state requires the developer to sign an easement granting the public rights to use the land. I think there are a couple of beaches that are still holdouts due to various old-timey contractual things, but in general, you can walk across private property to access a beach behind someone's house if there isn't a feasible public route (I.e. you aren't expected to rock climb down a cliff instead or hire a boat, but you should use the public walkway if there is one).