flyingfuzzball
Member
- May 10, 2007
- 957
- 0
FruDaddy said:I hate that the kid died, but there is no way that I have enough information to pass judgement here. Don't look at this as an opportunity to get angry.
flyingfuzzball said:i know
what really gets me though is how stupid people are though.
FruDaddy said:Do you really want to get into this debate in this thread?
Well, it would not be unheard of for a business to close off the entrance after working hours. I still leave the possibility open that the cable was put in place to keep the dirtbikes out, but there is nothing mentioned that indicates to me that the land owner knew that there were kids on the property at the time that the cable was placed across the road. It also seems to me that the existence of the cable was known to the boy:Becky Pratt said:The person who put the cable up owns a company and that trail is used for big trucks that go through.
I cannot omit the fact that most of the information provided has been given by other kids claiming to be close to the deceased, and therefore are clearly biased. Oh, and he was on his way home at 8:40PM to be with his mother on her birthday :whoa:Becky Pratt said:When Michael went through it was down and on his way back he didn’t realize it was back up.
FruDaddy said:True, but in light of the death, I didn't really want to say that everything in the link points to the fact that the kid would still be alive were he not riding on somebody else's land without permission. Trespassing is trespassing with or without posted signs. The landowner has every right to put up barricades (cable) to keep trespassers out. If the cable were there to do harm, I don't think that there would have been red streamers attached to it.
That's a pretty broad claim. Land owners are not liable for trespassers. That's why they(we) put gates and cables up to prevent unauthorized access. Sad case.Solid State said:True, but the landowner still has plausible liability because the kid died on his land - and from an obstacle that he placed there. If there's was no clearly visible sign warning of the cable and it can be shown the cable was hard to see, the landowner is in deep doo-doo. Better check the insurance limits.
This would be one for the civil courts to decide, when the plaitiff claims that the cable was hard to see, the defendant can rebut with the red streamers being there as a visible warning sign to make it easier to see the cable. With the setting sun, and a probability of the motorcycle not having a headlight, the rider should have been going slowly enough to see the streamers (or an animal that might wander across the road). This goes back to the old piece of driving advice, never try to outrun you headlights. The insurance limits might come into the mix, and the insurance lawyers could very well find their way into this one too.Solid State said:True, but the landowner still has plausible liability because the kid died on his land - and from an obstacle that he placed there. If there's was no clearly visible sign warning of the cable and it can be shown the cable was hard to see, the landowner is in deep doo-doo. Better check the insurance limits.
depends on the state, Swift. You'd be amazed at how screwed up the trespass laws are around the country.BSWIFT said:That's a pretty broad claim. Land owners are not liable for trespassers. That's why they(we) put gates and cables up to prevent unauthorized access. Sad case.
Land owners are not liable for trespassers
bsmith said:Bswift, welcome to Washington where it is not encouraged to own land.
BSWIFT said:That's a pretty broad claim. Land owners are not liable for trespassers. That's why they(we) put gates and cables up to prevent unauthorized access. Sad case.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?