"Reasonable" is a courts / legal industry weasel word that allows them to kick the can down the road not defining explicit requirements, which is what creates so much of the unknowable liability. This might be fine if we were talking matters of a few thousand dollars, but when we're talking about hundreds of thousands or more, creating a game of life-altering hot potato. And ambiguity would be understandable if we were talking about equitably judging personal action vs another personal action, but what we're talking about here is personal action vs an
existing situation that was entered voluntarily.
I do not see that it is "reasonable" to be responsible for any random uninformed person lackadaisically traversing my property as if it's some maintained event space they were invited into with a corresponding warranty of fitness. Yet the courts disagree, and so we're off to the races about what's "reasonable".
Do I need cones for a drainage ditch/brook that has been around for decades? Do I need cones for the 6-8" ruts due to driving through a part of my yard when it was waterlogged? Do I need cones or a fence for a tree that has half fallen down, resting on a neighboring tree, that I've yet to take down the rest of the way? Do I need cones for stumps of cut down trees? Do I need cones for items kept on the ground? Do I need warning signs about possible bees' nests in parts of structures? Do I need warning signs about the high number of ticks due to my letting the grass get halfway to a meadow? Beware of bear because it can hide in my overgrown bushes? These aren't unreasonable extremes, but actual concrete examples.
The world is an inherently unsafe place. We create structure that makes tiny slices of it "safe". Creating a general requirement that the nominal owner of a chunk of land is ambiguously responsible for making it completely safe, even for those who were uninvited, just devolves into putting up one big fence and "no trespassing" signs while hoping for the best. This is precisely what this thread is lamenting.
Also compensating out of a general fund would in no way require government inspections of private property. We're talking about extremely rare situations here, meaning this could be covered as-is in a statistical manner. In fact it already mostly is by private insurance, except when/until it isn't, with that reverse-lottery dynamic rearing its ugly head again.
(The wood pile example is because climbing on them is unsafe, yet looks fun. It's essentially the same type of attractive nuisance as a swimming pool)