Hacker News Reader

Comment by CubsFan1060 | Hacker News Reader

In a nation where people are sued all the time for innocent things, I'm not surprised. For instance, if you have a Koi Pond too deep, it may qualify as a public nuisance, or a pool. And if someone comes on your property without your permissions, falls in and dies, you can be sued.

I don't hunt. But if I owned one of these properties, I would probably be equally annoyed by it. A bunch of people, with guns? One trips and falls into your property, accidentally shooting someone? Yup, you get sued, and potentially lose your property.

View on HN

Seems like the reasonable thing to do to protect yourself from liability would be to give up a tiny strip of your land that provides public access to the publicly owned land. That way people who want to go to the publicly owned land go on that path and don't come on to your property and give you all that liability. It'd be a teeny fraction of land, but you could say with a straight face, "Hey, you wanted access to the public land? Use the nice convenient wide open access point, as the clearly posted signs indicate."

Intentionally buying up land that perfectly surrounds public land on all sides really betrays what's actually going on here.

Have you ever tried to subdivide a property? You make it sound like this is easy, but this is not easy at all.

Legally clarifying public right of way access would obviate the need for formal subdivision.

Again. If I was a landowner, I would never take that risk. For instance:

https://www.rkmlaw.net/who-is-liable-for-accident-on-easemen...

>For all other types of easements, however, including property usage rights granted to a neighbor or private party, maintenance remains the property owner’s legal responsibility. If the easement does not involve a public utility company, therefore, the landowner will be liable. Otherwise, the utility company will be liable. However, if the granted party damages the property, he or she is legally obligated to restore it to its previous condition.

Okay.

The solution is even simpler: right to roam. Give all people the right to traverse wild, undeveloped private property at their own risk, with no liability for the owner (assuming good faith on the owner’s part).

Throw in some reasonable guardrails regarding proximity to residences, intent, etc., and call it a day.

I really like this, and would support it. However, it's not the world the US lives in today.

We have this in Norway, it’s called allemannsretten “every man’s right”

>it may qualify as a public nuisance, or a pool. And if someone comes on your property without your permissions, falls in and dies, you can be sued

Somewhere, the people that established this are sitting comfortable while everyone else is suffering under the weight of their absurd decisions.

Billions have been spent because of this stupid rule/mindset.

That's where "No Trespassing" signs come into play. IANAL but from what I understand you can't normally get sued if a trespasser does something stupid on your property. Obviously, thinks like tiger pits or other things designed to cause injury can still make you liable though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com