TJMeek

your missing the point, I stated the facts, andour barrier was above anything required and visable for 2/3rds of a mile, just trying to clear our name in the incident

804

My Feedback: (1)

I Think a lot of you are confusing "what is" with "what should be". Let me share an analogy. My other hobby is motocross. I worked and raced at a local track. Shortly before the closing of the track, a rider sued the facility and 6 other entities for injuries he received in practice before the race, on raceday. Before he ever started his bike, the rider had signed 5 waivers stating he understood the dangers of racing, and would not hold anyone else responsible in case of his injuries. And probably, had the case gone to court, it would have been thrown out. But a settlement was reached. The point is that anyone can sue for anything, and no matter how legally "protected"you think you are, you or your club may be held liable, or you may have to pay a lot of lawyer fees, or pay for a settlement. Bottom line, can you afford it? Why not take DB's advice and try to mitigate any potential problems, saving the club, landowner, and potential tresspassers a lot of grief?

Liberator

OMFG!!!!! dude jump back to planet Earth.
As far as spikes on my apple tree..those are some pretty dang fine apples. I gots ta protect em...

I would be all over on your side of the fence IF the club had strung a single string of razor ribbon, or thin wire with the intent of trying to hurt someone. Based though on the facts, thats not what happened. There was no malicious intent here. There was no attempt at trying to camoflage (sp) the barrier. Should we all make sure that the barriers are well marked,? Hell yes we should, but here's a for instance.

It's let's say 3:45 in the afternoon on a brightly lit day and the barriers are clearly marked all the way from the road to the barriers and just to make it interesting, let's say the individual that ended up striking the barrier knew that it was there.

Sound far fetched? shouldn't, cause thats exactly what happened. I feel horrible that anyone got hurt, but it looks like it came back to the person that inadvertantly did themselves in.

It is a very sad thing, I hope it does not happen again.

STLPilot

My Feedback: (21)

You know I'm not really talking about that single event because for one thing there are 2 others Dave is talking about. Obviously he's trying to get a GENERAL point across regarding these chains, poles and other obviously dangerous object which cross areas which could be dangerous.

That is the whole point. If you don't have these chains clearly marked, and if you you know people can get hurt if you don't mark them, THEN YOU HAVE INTENT. This is exactly what Dave is trying to say. And if you guys think that you won't be sued if somone gets hurt by an unmarked chain on your property, in any other state then Texas???, then you are dead wrong. Also a thin wire or razor ribbon is what these poles turn into at high speeds.

Liberator

Actually no you do not have intent. It was not a wire that was across as a barrier, in most cases it's a pole or a chain. Keep in mind in the case I stated it was a well marked barrier with multiple signs, and this poor guy still ran into it. I get what your saying, save a life...don't get sued...blah blah blah...

Years ago when I still hunted I had permission to hunt from a farmers field. In order to get to the river where I needed to go I needed to go into the adjacent field which I did not have permission to do. It was sort of an understood thing. That farmer raised..can you guess? Texas Longhorns. I am not sure if you have ever seen one close up, but it's pretty impressive. Even more impressive is walking up on one at 4 am with a dense ground fog covering the area.
Slightly more impressive than that is coming around a tall piece of sage, at 4 am , heavy fog and finding yourself 3 feet from one and he is staring you down hooves kicking the ground.
Now I am not sure if you know this, but the Texas Longhorn can grow his horns 1.2 miles per side....at least thats what it looks like from 3 feet, head lowered and him showing them off obviously proud of them. All I can say is that 12 gauge your carrying turns into a peashooter so fast you need viagra to feel better about things.

My point is that if said Mr. Longhorn had decided to use me as a scratching post...its my fault. Technically I was trespassing because I did not have the little paper that said I could be there. THe farmer knew I was because he had given me a verbal ok, but was out of papers.
He had deniablility because no form was issued. Same as our guy that hit the barrier and any guy that hits barriers on PRIVATE PROPERTY. They have no right to be there.

My point is that EVEN under the best of possible cirumstances, people still do stupid things. Look at the Roswell Case. All the right things were done and someone still got hurt. Maybe he had a spaceship fly over that distracted him from ALL THE SIGNS AND WARNINGS.

Again, unless it was missed. Mark your chains, and poles. It's a good thing to do. Feel better?

aviti

My Feedback: (54)

Your opinions don't matter. The opinion of the court does. If you fail to mark a chain on your property, you are still responsible even if the person is trespassing. The jury will decide based on the law and the facts of the case. Sure I am protective of my property but I'm pretty sure if I shoot someone snooping around my yard that I'll go to jail and also could be sued. It's like the guy who backs into someone elses car. He says it isn't his fault because the car was parked illegally and shouldn't have been there. The illegally parked car deserves a parking ticket, not a smashed up car. The fact that a trespasser is doing something illegal and even stupid doesn't relieve the landowner of liability for an unmarked hazard.

J_R

First you say "Your opinions don't matter. The opinion of the court does.", which probably is correct, assuming the jury is part of the court, but then you go on to give your opinion.

Are you the court? Or is it just other posters' opinions that don't count?

EASYTIGER

My Feedback: (119)

JR, what's gotten into you? Second time, same thread, you are attacking someone for no reason at all.
The guy stated his opinion, and it's a very reasonable opinion, whydoyahatfa go bite his head off like that?
What's going on?

J_R

Didn't really mean to bite his head off, but... it is an oxymoron... isn't it?

J_R

I am edgy about discussing a death when we know so few facts. Seems like a new thread might be a better idea if everyone wants to play lawyer. Heck, Marc even started an off-topic forum. Might be even better there. Maybe I am just being overly sensitive of the family.

EASYTIGER

My Feedback: (119)

It was, yes, but you understood his point.

J_R

In the discussion I pointed to in the second link, in the second post in this tread, I was the thread starter. When the discussion started to go sideways, I requested that the moderator close the thread, and it was done.

Easytiger, you started this thread.

EASYTIGER

My Feedback: (119)

I started it, I have heard some interesting things here about the subject at hand, but I have also heard some very old hat type personal disputes like there always are on this forum, a bunch of political "if it were not for hippie liberals like Hillary this would be a great country!" crap, "let's kill all the lawyers", all this stuff that is getting waaay out there. Oh, well.
There is some interesting stuff, too.

J_R

Easytiger

I don't often confront you. Let me make my feelings clear, then I am out of this thread.

It is my opinion that you should close the thread and disassociate Dave Brown, and this kid from the comments being made here.

Nothing is wrong with the debate or the conjecture... as long as it is not in the context of this death.

JR

Liberator

"The fact that a trespasser is doing something illegal and even stupid doesn't relieve the landowner of liability for an unmarked hazard."
Oh really? Good luck defending that one.

So someone waltzes into your house to steal from you and kill you and your family. Just before he pulls the trigger he moves around to get a better angle and slips and falls into your pool. Luckily, said bad guy can't swim and you watch as he pleads with to help him out of the pool. You being the obviously kind person that you are now have a decision to make. Save him or let him die? Clocks ticking......

If it's me, I let him go meet Davey Jones..and no not the Monkee.

You though have to save him. So good luck with that. I am sure that he will thank you and not try and kill you this time around.

piper_chuck

My Feedback: (12)

Liberator, it's useless arguing with them. They will continue to insist that no matter how many laws a person breaks, such as trespassing on your property, and no matter how stupid their actions are, if they injur themself on your property, it's your fault.

piper_chuck

My Feedback: (12)

Calling someone stupid is an attack. Pointing out inconsistancies in what they say is not an attack. Why is it reasonable for a person to assert that somone else's opinions don't matter, but then to state their own, opposite opinion?

Liberator

lol I know, but its fun to banter.

EASYTIGER

My Feedback: (119)

No.
Each thing is on a case-by-case basis.
No court in this country is going to let someone sue you if they fall into your pool while trying to murder your family.
The old saw about the "guy who broke his leg while robbing a house and sued" is just that...an old saw. It comes under the urban myth thing like the $8m burned tongue from McDonalds.
Also myth is a lot of the Texas Trespassing stuff...yes, you have a right to defend your home, and Texas courts are more LIBERAL than most about it, but the law, even in Texas, allows you to use reasonable and appropriate force. Which does not necessarily mean blowing away anybody who crosses your fence. That's a lot of Texas baloney.
Anybody CAN sue you for anything they want, does not mean the suit will GO anywhere. Most of the "crazy american legal system out of control!" cases that get mentioned end up being dismissed the moment they hit a courtroom.
Not even evil old Billary Clinton is going to throw you in jail for blowing away an armed robber who enters your bedroom...or award the victim money if some trespasser decapitates themselves riding an ATC into a bright orange fence with reflectors that you put up on private property. It does not work that way.
But a wire barrier streched across a road to a field, where you know people ride their bikes, well, who knows? You would have to look at the facts of the individual case. Who knows? That's why they have courtrooms.

At any rate, DB never mentioned libility in the article, not once. Only trying to prevent accidents.
As far as mentioning the death that we know some details about, big deal. It was in the papers and all that. Don't know anything about the other two, have not heard anything at all about any lawsuits from any of the three events at all.

F2G-1

My Feedback: (13)

WOW!

As I read the article in MA I thought to myself 'wonder if a juicy thread will come out of this?"

I gotta go. I gotta put up the 'dont slam your motorbike into my house cuz it might hurt you' sign up in my yard! LOL

But seriously, I'm all for trying to avoid death, but i'm not going to get ridiculous about it.

Ted

aviti

My Feedback: (54)

J R my opinions don't matter either. The examples I referenced only point to laws and the reasoning a court has used in interpreting them. The opinions I find the most interesting are the ones that say you need to take personal responsibility for your actions. That's a fair statement but it applies to both the guy on the ATV and the landowner, not just the guy on the ATV.

STLPilot

My Feedback: (21)

Here is a case where a 13 year old was killed. At first trial it was dismissed due to the fact the person was trespassing. It went to the court of appeals and was later reversed due to the fact that the chain was unmarked and that that a reasonable person could conclude that an unmarked chain under these circumstances would be likely to cause serious injury or death to such trespassers.

[link=http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:e47Doahc71YJ:http://www.state.wv.us/WVSCA/DOCS/Sp...clnk&cd=1]LINK[/link]

So I don't know the exact outcome of this case, but it was reversed in appellate court and this is the first one that I look for and found. I'll try to find the final hearing, but either way that guy is going to spend a lot of money to fight his case, hope he has good liability insurance. One thing that did not help this case is the fact that after the accident happened he decided to hang blaze orange surveyor's ribbon to the chain, that sure didn't help his case much.

It was reversed for:
1. The chain at issue in this case was dangerous under the circumstances.
2. There is evidence in the record that suggests that the chain was unmarked, difficult to see,
3. A reasonable person could conclude that an unmarked chain under these circumstances would be likely to cause serious injury or death to such trespassers.
4. The evidence is in dispute as to whether the appellee exercised reasonable care to adequately warn trespassers of the allegedly dangerous condition. I.E. a sign was not erected.

So once again, if you think you can have a chain across your road and unmarked, sorry but you're once again, WRONG.

STLPilot

My Feedback: (21)

You are right to a point, but not the whole way. If you create unsafe conditions on your property, then your tresspasser can sue you. This goes back to putting spikes and razor blades on your apple tree knowingly kids are taking apples from that tree. That is illegal. Just like knowingly hanging an unmarked chain across a road.

From Caswlaw:
For a trespasser to establish liability against the possessor of property who has created or maintains a highly dangerous condition or instrumentality upon the property, the following conditions must be met: (1) the possessor must know, or from facts within his knowledge should know, that trespassers constantly intrude in the area where the dangerous condition is located; (2) the possessor must be aware that the condition is likely to cause serious bodily injury or death to such trespassers; (3) the condition must be such that the possessor has reason to believe trespassers will not discover it; and, (4), in that event, the possessor must have failed to exercise reasonable care to adequately warn the trespassers of the condition.

Some of the fields out there that don't have their chains marked, probably and in many cases fall under the above guidelines. The best way to avoid it, is to CLEARLY mark it.

Here is one I found in England where they were sued and lost, but that's England: http://www.lelc.co.uk/beware_noticie...s_car_park.htm

piper_chuck

My Feedback: (12)

As has been said several times already, this is a matter for the courts to decide. In summarizing the case you cited you've misinterpreted several points, and left out key criteria.

piper_chuck

My Feedback: (12)

This was established many, many, many posts ago.