one way to stop a trespasser

[Pygmy]

if someone hurts themselves on your property and it was not "fenced in". You are liable. Silly but true law. The violator must commit and obvious act to tresspass and bypass security in order for you to be excused of liability. It is why most towns and insurance companies require gates and fences by pools.

 

 

I don't think that is accurate, Belo.

 

A few years ago when I was sec/treas for a local hunting co-op, this question came up.

 

We did the research and learned that the landowner is NOT liable for injuries on his/her property resulting from normal recreational activities  UNLESS the landowner charges a fee for access for such activities.

 

Exceptions would be if there were blatant safety issues, such as booby traps, wires hung low over atv trails, etc.

 

Basically saying that if you give Joe Blow permission to hunt your land and he shoots himself or breaks his leg stepping over a deadfall, you are NOT liable unless you charged him a fee to hunt your property.

[Jason118]

I don't think that is accurate, Belo.

A few years ago when I was sec/treas for a local hunting co-op, this question came up.

We did the research and learned that the landowner is NOT liable for injuries on his/her property resulting from normal recreational activities UNLESS the landowner charges a fee for access for such activities.

Exceptions would be if there were blatant safety issues, such as booby traps, wires hung low over atv trails, etc.

Basically saying that if you give Joe Blow permission to hunt your land and he shoots himself or breaks his leg stepping over a deadfall, you are NOT liable unless you charged him a fee to hunt your property.

[Doc]

I don't think that is accurate, Belo.

 

A few years ago when I was sec/treas for a local hunting co-op, this question came up.

 

We did the research and learned that the landowner is NOT liable for injuries on his/her property resulting from normal recreational activities  UNLESS the landowner charges a fee for access for such activities.

 

Exceptions would be if there were blatant safety issues, such as booby traps, wires hung low over atv trails, etc.

 

Basically saying that if you give Joe Blow permission to hunt your land and he shoots himself or breaks his leg stepping over a deadfall, you are NOT liable unless you charged him a fee to hunt your property.

I know that property owner's liability laws were modified to relax some of the ridiculous claims that some people were making against homeowners. However, I am still a bit Leary about some of the more skillful lawyers who can make some pretty darn good cases out of nothing these days. I still consider that when guests are invited onto my land, there is still always a possibility of legal issues if something should happen. 

[Five Seasons]

Perhaps some rules and laws have changed. And there are probably no black and white cut and dry rules, so I would also agree with Doc on being leery of lawyers. I think there is a difference perhaps to someone sneaking around your backyard and someone you give permission to hunt your woods. i can think of cases where burglars have fallen into excavation sites that were not roped off and won their suits. I have not heard of hunters falling into holes and suing, but I do know that Honeywell patrols Tulley valley because of the sink holes Allied Signal created from sulfur mining.

 

Regardless, that is clearly a booby trap in its most black and white form.

[sits in trees]

I wouldn't really recommend doing anything like that to stop a trespasser, could land you into a heap of poop.

[Fantail]

Anyone else notice fasteddie hasn't ranted about the Stealth cam they used?

Oh wait .. that one works.

[gfdeputy2]

if someone hurts themselves on your property and it was not "fenced in". You are liable. Silly but true law. The violator must commit and obvious act to tresspass and bypass security in order for you to be excused of liability. It is why most towns and insurance companies require gates and fences by pools.

NH is same as NY with pools not Required but strongly suggested

but here like I have said before if land is not posted you are not tresspassing unless asked to leave & you refuse  then you are tresspassing

mainly for hunting as we do not have a lot of public land. There are laws to protect the land owner

last year a guy used a treestand that was on someone else's land he had found while hunting well the stand failed he tried to sue the landowner but was thrown out of court

[Doc]

There are laws to protect the land owner

last year a guy used a treestand that was on someone else's land he had found while hunting well the stand failed he tried to sue the landowner but was thrown out of court

Would the same result occur in NYS? I'm not so sure.

[jrm]

We did the research and learned that the landowner is NOT liable for injuries on his/her property resulting from normal recreational activities  UNLESS the landowner charges a fee for access for such activities.

up front... I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.

I recently looked into this subject for both myself and a group I am affiliated with. I came up with the same conclusion. There is no liability.

Further, the property owner has no obligation to notify a dangerous condition on his land. If there a a pit or tree about to fall over (from _natural_ causes) that is the way it is. You are not liable.

Of course, if you CREATE the dangerous situation or set up a trap for a trespasser, than you are screwed. You will be liable for civil action and could face criminal charges.

Application of theses concepts will vary. If you are in a small lot in suburbia and do nothing to correct a tree that is obviously about to fall over... you will likely lose in court if it hits the neighborhood kid riding a bike past your house. If you have 50 acres in the country and a tree falls on a hunter passing through some wooded part of your property, I bet the outcome would be different.

The thing is that anyone can sue anyone else for anything. There are plenty of ambulance chasers out there who work on contingency. If you have homeowners insurance, they will take virtually ANY case because they know the insurance company will write a check. They have a price schedule based on type and severity of injury and pretty much know in advance what the payout will be.

One other point about land, posting and trespassing. While it is always a good idea to post your land, it isn't always strictly necessary. Posting is actually only required for _undeveloped_ land. According to the DEC, something as simple as brush hogging marks land as "developed" and removes the _requirement_ to post. So if you see a driveway, a manmade trail, a shed, a fence... you are trespassing whether or not there is a sign. (of course, if your public trail crosses directly onto unposted private property things become cloudy as there is a presumed right of way/easement).

I am pretty sure there is not an assumed "right to use" private land. The purpose of posting is to delineate private land from non-private land when the distinction isn't clear. If you KNOW you are on private land and do NOT have the permission of the landowner, you are trespassing. The only thing that reduces it from trespass to an honest mistake is not knowing.

I was at a group event less than a year ago where several "expert hunters" were talking about this. Amazing how much bad/wrong information they gave out about posting and private property. They basically had a "better to ask forgiveness than permission, but better to not be caught at all" philosophy. They claimed posted signs were not valid at all unless on a dedicated post (no trees or fences)with a specific type of backing material and placed a certain height off the ground. According to them, if you see a posted sign on a tree, you are free to ignore it because it isn't "valid."

IMO, you should post proper signs and have a good homeowner's policy. That will likely cover you from most frivolous liability issues. Setting up booby traps may sound like fun for those of us who grew up watching Road Runner cartoons but, like the cartoon, it is usually the one setting the trap who gets screwed in the end.

Edited June 3, 2014 by jrm

[Doc]

Beware of overly generalized statements regarding any part of the legal system.

[fasteddie]

Anyone else notice fasteddie hasn't ranted about the Stealth cam they used?

Oh wait .. that one works.

 

You woke me up !

It would be funny to see that fat kid on the bike covered with paint !

I could see a serious problem if it happened where there were riders on horses ............. whoa Nellie !

[fasteddie]

Oh yeah , the camera isn't fast enough to catch ATV riders that don't belong on the property .

[stubby68]

       U can be sued under civil law for injuries on your property even if the person was tresspassing.Only way to fight this is to fence in your property. They can even sue if cought trespassing and told to leave and they get injured while leaving. Best thing to do is walk them off your property to make sure they avoid any possable dangers

[Carbonelement]

who cares if he is tresspassing he deserves it. I cant stand people like this old retard, i dont care how long he has hunted the area and if he needs the meat to survive. I am not nice with trespassers, sometimes i will leave a note, but i like free stands better then anyone. and sometimes i just cut the entire tree down and smash the stand if its garbage.  This hits a nerve with me, i would not do that for liability reasons but all the power to the guy who did, he should have put a foot trap.

[Doc]

who cares if he is tresspassing he deserves it. I cant stand people like this old retard, i dont care how long he has hunted the area and if he needs the meat to survive. I am not nice with trespassers, sometimes i will leave a note, but i like free stands better then anyone. and sometimes i just cut the entire tree down and smash the stand if its garbage.  This hits a nerve with me, i would not do that for liability reasons but all the power to the guy who did, he should have put a foot trap.

Yeah, you're right. Trespass is a crime of arrogance, and I have little patience with the kinds of attitudes that would make a person think they have the right to cross a posted line. But, the liability aspect is also something that a landowner has to keep a lid on, just for their own protection.

[Fantail]

So the bottom line is there are more rights for those who commit crimes, even something petty like trespassing, then there are rights to protect land owners. In other words we own land so we have the privilege of paying more taxes and a higher risk of being sued.

Hate to say it but this is why I don't like to invite people. And I would suspect why many are hesitant to get youth involved on their property. Bet the anti's love that.

 

[Doc]

So the bottom line is there are more rights for those who commit crimes, even something petty like trespassing, then there are rights to protect land owners. In other words we own land so we have the privilege of paying more taxes and a higher risk of being sued.

Hate to say it but this is why I don't like to invite people. And I would suspect why many are hesitant to get youth involved on their property. Bet the anti's love that.

I have always said that we don't really own the land. We simply rent it from the government. The taxes are the rent, and the government is the landlord. Don't believe it, just try to make changes to the property without all the proper permits (permissions) and see how quick the landlord (government) sets you straight. And if you don't pay the rent (taxes), they will indeed evict you. I never look down on renters anymore. It could be that they are the ones that have got it right.

 

And yes the law is generally on the side of the perpetrators. It's been that way for a long time, and not just regarding property owner's rights either.

[Five Seasons]

So the bottom line is there are more rights for those who commit crimes, even something petty like trespassing, then there are rights to protect land owners. In other words we own land so we have the privilege of paying more taxes and a higher risk of being sued.

Hate to say it but this is why I don't like to invite people. And I would suspect why many are hesitant to get youth involved on their property. Bet the anti's love that.

 

Go to jail, get a free education and medical. Obey the law and figure it out yourself

[jjb4900]

I have always said that we don't really own the land. We simply rent it from the government. The taxes are the rent, and the government is the landlord. Don't believe it, just try to make changes to the property without all the proper permits (permissions) and see how quick the landlord (government) sets you straight. And if you don't pay the rent (taxes), they will indeed evict you. I never look down on renters anymore. It could be that they are the ones that have got it right.

 

And yes the law is generally on the side of the perpetrators. It's been that way for a long time, and not just regarding property owner's rights either.

that's pretty amazing isn't it? you could have spent a million dollars on a house and property, fully pay it off, and it can be taken away for unpaid taxes, and they simply auction it off for the amount of the taxes that are owed..unreal.

[ants]

I have always said that we don't really own the land. We simply rent it from the government. The taxes are the rent, and the government is the landlord. Don't believe it, just try to make changes to the property without all the proper permits (permissions) and see how quick the landlord (government) sets you straight. And if you don't pay the rent (taxes), they will indeed evict you. I never look down on renters anymore. It could be that they are the ones that have got it right.

 

And yes the law is generally on the side of the perpetrators. It's been that way for a long time, and not just regarding property owner's rights either.

Exactly…..Pay the government or your land/property becomes theirs. Which, when you think about it, really means that all land belongs to  the government. They just let you use it for a fee (taxes). 

[HuntOrBeHunted]

I just use bear traps and giant moth balls lol. Jk Jk

[jrm]

So the bottom line is there are more rights for those who commit crimes, even something petty like trespassing, then there are rights to protect land owners. In other words we own land so we have the privilege of paying more taxes and a higher risk of being sued.

Hate to say it but this is why I don't like to invite people. And I would suspect why many are hesitant to get youth involved on their property. Bet the anti's love that.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Sure, sometimes the system does pretty crazy things. These are exceptions rather than the rule. Of course it is the exceptions which make the headlines, not the everyday, common sense things.

I was looking into liability issues like this recently. I am not a lawyer and I don't work with/for one. I was still able to find decisions of many NYS court cases. Contrary to urban legend, there seems to be a long list of civil court case decisions that fall on the side of common sense (i.e. side with the defendant/property owner, as one would hope and expect).

Insurance is both part of the problem and part of the solution. It gives you protection from the frivolous things. It also tends to pay out a settlement whether or not the case makes sense.

NYS law explicitly provides protection for landowners whose land is used by others for recreation (provided there is no cost to do so). Add some cheap insurance on top of that and I don't understand why anyone would be afraid to let others use their land.

Yes, anyone can sue anyone else at any time for any reason. I bet you can find a lawyer who will take any case, no matter how frivolous. The insurance companies usually have better lawyers and fight it for you. If it really is frivolous, they will not pay because they know a judge will likely not take the case. If the case has merit (negligence or malcontent such as building a booby-trap) it will still probably settle. Either way, the insurance company handles it all. A big payout may mean higher rates or a cancelled policy - but I would still maintain that a big payout generally means you were actually in the wrong.

There are always exceptions, but I believe the vast majority of liability cases work out in a relatively fair way.

I have been connected with a few civil cases. Two involved a hit and run, in one of which the driver was obviously drunk. From what you see/read, you would think it was going to be a jackpot of the injured party. In reality it doesn't work that way. "Good" lawyers weren't interested in the case - they showed me the payout list and if you didn't lose an appendage or die, the potential payout is too low for them to get involved.

Most cases get settled. It is not so much a problem with courts and laws, but with lawyers and insurance companies. They know in advance how many man-hours it will take to do something. Thus it becomes easier to "lose" and pay $1.00 than to "win" and have it cost you $2.00.

[beachpeaz]

Lightbulb!