6 ms·
I pretty much knew what I would find in the comments on this one. The right to roam, in country in which it exist in one form or another, is exactly this: the r
by maeln 2y ago
I pretty much knew what I would find in the comments on this one.
The right to roam, in country in which it exist in one form or another, is exactly this: the right to roam. Not the right to camp (although some allow it usually with some restriction), live, squat, pollute, destroy, ...
As someone who sometime had to go from point A to point B in the countryside without a car, this was a necessity as it was the only safe way to do so (sidewalk are nonexistent in the countryside). It also avoid "trapping" some public land within private one (and effectively privatizing it), although, in my country at least, the state will usually preempt a small piece of the private land to always have a passage between public land.
As for the liability, is should go without saying that there is usually laws that release you from any liability for people hurting themselves while roaming on your property (with the obvious exception that you should not put anything with the intention of hurting people, for example traps).
- bequanna 2y ago> As for the liability, is should go without saying that there is usually laws that release you from any liability for people hurting themselves while roaming on your property This isn't true. A person can break into your home, fall down stairs and file a lawsuit against you.
- ryanmcbride 2y agoDo you have an example of such a lawsuit succeeding in real life outside of the movie Liar Liar?
- ryandrake 2y agoA lawsuit still costs money to the defendant even if it doesn't "succeed" in the end. The legal system is pretty much inaccessible to laypeople, so you need to at least hire a lawyer so they can speak the magical incantations and file the right 27b/6 form to the right clerk at the right time so you don't lose due to a paperwork technicality.
- stale2002 2y agoSo, to clarify, your answer seems to be "No. I do not have a single real life example of this happening"?
- ryandrake 2y agoI'm not OP and didn't make any claims about "falling down stairs and filing a lawsuit". You want me to provide a generic example of someone being sued and it not succeeding? I would guess this happens daily.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- xboxnolifes 2y agoI could sue you without ever walking onto your property. That doesn't mean anything.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- criddell 2y agoThey are probably thinking of attractive nuisance lawsuits. For example, if you have a pool without a fence around it and a neighbor's kid trespasses and ends up falling into the pool, you could be found liable to some degree.
- swashboon 2y agoThey don't even need to go through the work of breaking in - anyone can in fact just sue anyone for any reason at any time!
- notaustinpowers 2y agoI can also file a lawsuit because I don't like the color of your house. Doesn't mean it'll succeed in a court of law.
- AmalgatedAmoeba 2y agoYou can file a suit against anybody for anything. If it’s obviously without merit, it’s likely to get dismissed pretty quickly. But there’s nothing stopping you from filing it.
- virtue3 2y agoNot really true - that case was an urban myth I believe from my own searching (as I heard about it when I grew up). Would like sources if it's true. What I did look up: "Premises liability laws generally do not extend to trespassers, such as burglars, because they do not have a legal right to be on the property. However, property owners in California may be liable for injuries caused by a crime on their property if they should have reasonably foreseen the crime and failed to take steps to reduce the risk. This is known as negligent security and can apply to crimes such as burglary, theft, and robbery. Factors that may contribute to a negligent security claim include: Broken or missing surveillance cameras, Lack of security guards, and Broken or inadequate locks."
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- 9dev 2y agoIf a new right to roam law was introduced, why couldn't it include a section on the release of any liability if one makes use of this right to roam? It's not like laws can't be adjusted, right?
- volkl48 2y agoAnyone can file a lawsuit for anything. Filing a lawsuit that doesn't get immediately dismissed by the judge because it has no merit, is a different question. ----- In the Northern New England states (VT/NH/ME) that have a sort of freedom to roam codified in law (basically - unposted, undeveloped property is generally free to access for low-impact uses like hiking without requiring permission) - there is broad liability protection provided to the property owner. For example, the law in VT for liability in that land access situation is only if the injury that occurs is "....the result of the willful or wanton misconduct of the owner." (and has further exemptions from even that if the injury is with regards to accessing equipment/machinery/personal property - which you're not entitled to access). You pretty much need to be setting traps or creating some truly absurd unnatural hazards to be at legal risk.
- hanniabu 2y ago> with the obvious exception that you should not put anything with the intention of hurting people, for example trap what if it's bear country and someone puts out bear traps and says they're for bears when really they were meant for people? it's a good alibi so how would you defend against that?
- pavlov 2y agoSomehow this is not a problem in Finland, which has both bears and an expansive right to roam. It seems to be an American thing that landowners actively seek ways to injure both wildlife and people.
- dingnuts 2y agoThe grandparent is describing someone with murderous motive. That isn't a cultural difference. There are murderers in Finland, lol. A bear trap "for hunting" on your property would be a very bad alibi as booby trapping your property is extremely illegal in the US regardless as to intent. If you set something up on your property that harms someone, intentionally or otherwise, whether they are legally allowed to be on your property or not in the US, you are liable for whatever happens to them up to and including homicide (intentional or otherwise) charges. Bear traps are an archaic hunting tool for bears, also, and their use in actual bear hunting is not common anymore. So please, keep your condemnations about Americans "actively seeking ways to injure wildlife and people" to yourself when you are responding to a ridiculous, contrived, and uninformed scenario with your own cultural superiority narrative.
- pavlov 2y agoUnfortunately many American legislators and courts seem to go out of their way to promote this narrative by passing and enforcing laws that permit excessive use of violence by landowners and homeowners.
- nerdponx 2y agoActively shooting trespassers with a gun is different from booby-trapping your property.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]