Previous :: Next Topic |
Author |
Message |
Sculpin Member
Joined: 23 Apr 2015 Posts: 1383 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Sculpin
Member
|
Tue Feb 25, 2020 1:12 pm
|
|
|
RandyHiker wrote: | the biggest hazard for land owners of allowing access is that by actually permitting it, will over time establish an easement |
It depends on what you mean by "permitting it." One of the surprising things in the law is that if you give expressed permission for someone to cross your land, no right-of-easement accrues. So if you put a sign that says:
WELCOME HIKERS
The route ahead crosses private land,
please stay on the trail
...no right-of-easement accrues. It has a certain logic to it.
Between every two pines is a doorway to the new world. - John Muir
Between every two pines is a doorway to the new world. - John Muir
|
Back to top |
|
|
Alpendave Member
Joined: 01 Aug 2008 Posts: 863 | TRs | Pics
|
But what of the beetles kill a pine which then falls on one of those hikers and paralyzes him/her? Seems like the owner could be liable for not taking the tree down.
The point of what I was saying is that liability should be shifted from the land owner to the individual — a large degree of immunity if you will.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Alpendave Member
Joined: 01 Aug 2008 Posts: 863 | TRs | Pics
|
As with any issue I this forum:
|
Back to top |
|
|
Randito Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008 Posts: 9513 | TRs | Pics Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
Tue Feb 25, 2020 3:46 pm
|
|
|
Sculpin wrote: | RandyHiker wrote: | the biggest hazard for land owners of allowing access is that by actually permitting it, will over time establish an easement |
It depends on what you mean by "permitting it." One of the surprising things in the law is that if you give expressed permission for someone to cross your land, no right-of-easement accrues. So if you put a sign that says:
WELCOME HIKERS
The route ahead crosses private land,
please stay on the trail
...no right-of-easement accrues. It has a certain logic to it. |
I'm not an attorney, but I suppose adverse possession would be a harder case to enforce with such signage.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Randito Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008 Posts: 9513 | TRs | Pics Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
Tue Feb 25, 2020 3:54 pm
|
|
|
alpendave wrote: | But what of the beetles kill a pine which then falls on one of those hikers and paralyzes him/her? Seems like the owner could be liable for not taking the tree down.
The point of what I was saying is that liability should be shifted from the land owner to the individual — a large degree of immunity if you will. |
I think the risks of liability are a boogeyman that gets tossed around willy nilly.
Winning such a case is highly improbable, it is also improbable that such a case would even be filed unless the estate got poor legal advice or had some other agenda.
I know of a young girl that was killed by a falling tree while a camper at Camp Sealth -- that was considered an "act of god" with no liability to the camp.
Alpental averages a fatality per year and manages to stay in business.
|
Back to top |
|
|
mb Member
Joined: 11 Aug 2002 Posts: 507 | TRs | Pics
|
|
mb
Member
|
Tue Feb 25, 2020 8:36 pm
|
|
|
Kim Brown wrote: | I wonder if the unwillingness of USFS to cooperate with the guys defense was lack of staff. it's easier to just not help out. |
Given that the current administration is all about privatizing public land... more likely the owner was a friend of Zinke or some other connected person. Or just any private owner is given precedent over the public.
If the USFS staff has a document they could hint at it and respond to a public record request or whatnot.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Malachai Constant Member
Joined: 13 Jan 2002 Posts: 16092 | TRs | Pics Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny |
Law owner liability is dependent upon both the status of the person on the land and statutory law. In the case of recreation trespassers have the lowest protection, invitees higher, and customers the highest. This is modified by statutory law which reduces ski areas and the like where there would otherwise be strict liability. Ski areas are off the hook in most cases unless they they set traps intentional or unintentional. You could be liable if for example you close trails when avalanche hazard exists but leave one open by accident and injury results. You can waive negligence in come cases but not recklessness. You are usually nor liable in the example above where a rotten tree falls on someone unless you have been warned and ignored the warning. As people said it is complicated.
"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
|
Back to top |
|
|
Sculpin Member
Joined: 23 Apr 2015 Posts: 1383 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Sculpin
Member
|
Wed Feb 26, 2020 8:20 am
|
|
|
RandyHiker wrote: | I think the risks of liability are a boogeyman that gets tossed around willy nilly. |
Exactly. The man-bites-dog lawsuits you see in the news color people's opinions. In many cases where both sides are insured, the insurance company of the injured more or less automatically files suit against the other insurance company to gain leverage. I would be all for changing our liability laws to look more like the laws in European countries like Germany. The term allemansratten was already invoked here.
Between every two pines is a doorway to the new world. - John Muir
Between every two pines is a doorway to the new world. - John Muir
|
Back to top |
|
|
mike Member
Joined: 09 Jul 2004 Posts: 6398 | TRs | Pics Location: SJIsl |
|
mike
Member
|
Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:57 am
|
|
|
In Washington a land owner is not liable if he/she grants a free easement. If they charge or have obvious dangers, e.g. uncovered well, then not.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Muir fan Member
Joined: 13 Dec 2012 Posts: 89 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Muir fan
Member
|
Sun Mar 08, 2020 4:57 pm
|
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
treeswarper Alleged Sockpuppet!
Joined: 25 Dec 2006 Posts: 11277 | TRs | Pics Location: Don't move here |
|
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!
|
Mon Mar 09, 2020 7:31 am
|
|
|
Would you stay off such a trail when the landowner posts closed signs?
For instance, Port Blakely Tree Farms allowed non motorized access on their land. They will cancel that and post closed to all use signs when the fire danger escalates. That means their land and roads may be closed to public use from July to September, depending on weather. They do have a Forest Patrol driving around.
How would you handle fire danger? Would you respect the landowner and stay out?
I thought about phoning or writing for permission to walk there during the fire closure stating that my dog and I would try not to spontaneously combust. But I never did.
What's especially fun about sock puppets is that you can make each one unique and individual, so that they each have special characters. And they don't have to be human––animals and aliens are great possibilities
What's especially fun about sock puppets is that you can make each one unique and individual, so that they each have special characters. And they don't have to be human––animals and aliens are great possibilities
|
Back to top |
|
|
moonspots Happy Curmudgeon
Joined: 03 Feb 2007 Posts: 2456 | TRs | Pics Location: North Dakota |
|
moonspots
Happy Curmudgeon
|
Mon Mar 09, 2020 10:09 am
|
|
|
Kim Brown wrote: | alpendave wrote: | and perhaps the hanging of a few ambulance-chasing lawyers |
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers"
---Shakespeare, Hank 6 |
I've thought that for many years. We could do well to emulate Scotland's public access policies/laws.
"Out, OUT you demons of Stupidity"! - St Dogbert, patron Saint of Technology
"Out, OUT you demons of Stupidity"! - St Dogbert, patron Saint of Technology
|
Back to top |
|
|
mike Member
Joined: 09 Jul 2004 Posts: 6398 | TRs | Pics Location: SJIsl |
|
mike
Member
|
Mon Mar 09, 2020 7:09 pm
|
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
RodF Member
Joined: 01 Sep 2007 Posts: 2593 | TRs | Pics Location: Sequim WA |
|
RodF
Member
|
Fri Mar 20, 2020 11:33 am
|
|
|
RandyHiker wrote: | I think the biggest hazard for land owners of allowing access is that by actually permitting it, will over time establish an easement and then they will not be able to use the land as fully as they could otherwise, it also diminishes the resale value of the land. |
This concern may be valid in some other states, but it appears not in Washington state (see Gamboa v Clark) nor in Oregon (Motes v PacifiCorps). We discussed this in further length in a prior thread.
"of all the paths you take in life, make sure a few of them are dirt" - John Muir
"the wild is not the opposite of cultivated. It is the opposite of the captivated” - Vandana Shiva
"of all the paths you take in life, make sure a few of them are dirt" - John Muir
"the wild is not the opposite of cultivated. It is the opposite of the captivated” - Vandana Shiva
|
Back to top |
|
|
|