Injury while illegally trespassing on property -- your view on liability

Remove all ads!

In short, do you believe the proprietor should be liable for medical expenses, lost wage etc of the illegal trespasser who enters his land?

If it's too complex for a simple answer, let's divide it into a couple of sub-issues:

1. The trespasser knows or doesn't know he's entering private property.

2. If the latter is true, he may or may not know it's illegal for him to inter.

3. If he knows it's illegal for him to enter, he may intend only to trespass (e.g. take a shortcut through your land, take a picture with your 300 year old appletree etc) or he may intend bodily harm or property damage.

The owner of the land or building may be responsible just for medical expenses but also for lost wage, income decrease, "moral losses", mental suffering or whatever you call it.

Personally, I was much inclined to shout, "Hell, no!" and end it at that. However, not all situations are so simple.

For example, if someone breaks into my house or other building and manages to injure himself while trying to steal something or harm someone, it's his own problem. He should be liable to me for damaging the stuff he broke his legs on.

If the land isn't fenced or people like the injured trespassers are normally admitted where he went, there's no question of illegal trespassing and the owner should be liable if he was negligent and the "trespasser" wasn't. I think this liability should perhaps be maintained even if the person injured did in fact intend something illegal. For example, when you get your legs blasted off while trying to steal a cow from where you're allowed to go anyway, you should probably be given some damages.

People should never be under any obligation to make their property safe for burglars, rapists, murderers and the like, so unless you're protecting your shop's window bars with 12000 Volt or installing some ugly hidden blades or stuff, you shouldn't be liable. Come on, you shouldn't be forced to pay someone's medical expenses just because your roof was in a bad state of disrepair when he was trying to break in for rape and plunder. Or when you smash someone's hands or feet when you don't notice his trying to steal your car.

However, if you keep some deadly substances in the open in misleading containers, you should probably be liable in certain situations.

So, what's your view? I'm not asking how it is but how it should be. Feel free to cite some laws or verdicts you agree or disagree with, though.

(If you need me to explain anything, please don't post below. PM me and I'll edit the opening post. Same if you want someone else to explain, so we can avoid one liners and especially one liners with big quotes attached. )

 

If you manage to steal successfully, then you win. If you are caught and you get injured, you will probably make more by sueing the owners - again you win.

You might as well well kill the person breaking into your house to pervent him/her taking you to court

 

Unless there is a deliberate attempt to harm on the part of the property owner I think a simple NO! would serve as my answer.

Even if you do not have a fence or any signs, and someone just comes on your property to take a photo of the appletree, if the person is injured in an accident then that is his/her fault. You should be responsible for taking care of your own well being. I think that slipping on ice lawsuits are absolutely absurd.

If the property owner has planted land mines on his front lawn or something like that then that is something completely different.

 

I generally agree with JSSB - that in any normal situation, the property owner shouldn't be liable, unless there was something on his property that was deliberately placed there to injure someone.

However, I understand the slipping on ice lawsuits. In my community we have a rule that states that within 12 hours of a snowfall, your sidewalks must be cleared. Sidewalks are considered public areas, despite the fact that the private homeowner is expected to maintain them. If there is a city ordinance that states you've got 12 hours, and someone falls and hurts themselves because after 12 hours your walkway wasn't clear, you can probably be sued.

 

I pretty much agree with what everyone else has said.

However, there is one case not mentioned; children. Children stray. I know I did and I was considered a well behaved child. Oh, also, drunks; not responsible for what they do or at least lessened responsibility.

Pools, for instance, should be fenced with a locked gate so that one has to intentionally climb over the fence. There are other hazards that someone wandering around in the dark might stumble into.

Someone breaking and entering deserves what ever happens in my opinion but when I lived in Arizona I was told that a dog attacking a burglar meant you were liable for injuries to the burglar. Don't know if it was a local law or state or if it has been changed. I consider that a dumb law.

 

It is rules like that which drive me nuts.

1) I am often away from my house travelling on business for weeks at a time. My parents take care of my house but I can't reasonably expect them to run over and shovel my driveway within 12 hours.
2) If the ground is icy then you should walk carefully. I am sick and tired of this attitude that basically says that the people shouldn't be responsible for taking care of their own health and safety.

As far as the drunks and children issue is concerned I don't think it should be the property owners responsibility to take care of someone else. If the parents are letting the child roam and he/she falls into a pool then that is the child and parents fault and not the property owner. Requiring the property owner to have fences around their pool is absurd. As far as drunks go, I have no sympathy whatsoever. If a drunk manages to get hurt or killed while intoxicated then tough luck.

 

The same rule exists here as well. And while it might be annoying for the house owner, eventually I agree with the rule.

Walk carefully? How about old and ill people? Who are forced to use the sidewalk. Should they walk in the road where cars may come? Or shouldn't they come in this way? Those who need to go to work and can't afford a car or for some other reason he/she has no choice what path to use.
It is a generally accepted practice, not just in case of snow, that you should look after the part of the sidewalk in front of your house.

 

I thought everyone in the U.S. had that law. (Granted, I don't know about Canada, but the laws generally speaking aren't too different.) In every state that I have lived in, there was a law that clearly stated that if you own a pool, the pool area of the property must be fenced in. You could fence in the entire yard if you so wished, but the only requirement was the area around the pool. Moreover, they are very specific that the height of the fence must be at least 6 feet tall. So you can't put up a little 3 feet tall fence that can be easily hopped over.

 

It is a law in Canada that you need the fence around your pool. I disagree with it.

As far as walking on ice, I am not talking about sidewalks that the public walk on, the government snow clearing crews are responsible for clearing them just like they do the roads. What I am talking about is the path from the sidewalk up to your front door plus your driveway.

I really don't see the big deal about walking on ice. Most people in Canada do it all the time during the winter - young or old. Nobody cared about it until the early 90s when a bunch of lawyers decided to try to put through some U.S. style big $ injury lawsuits.

 

Ice and Canada rather go together, at least in the minds of us southern folk. But I know from experience how dangerous ice can be. In Brooklyn we got black ice. Couldn't see it and we were responsible for the sidewalks in front of our houses. The city did not clean the sidewalks. Sure it was a nuisance to have to worry about it but I guess in situations where everyone has to do it people don't get so upset.

As for children, I don't mean toddlers that should be watched but school age children, walking home from school, running to the ice cream parlor. Should they be kept in restraints? My opinion is no, the community does have responsibilities. We do not live in a vacuum.

 

Some guy entered our Garage one night appraximately 1:30 am. He startled our dog, who was sleeping there. She bit him. The guy came back the next day to complain about it (I forget whether police were present). The conversation switched from what we were going to do about the dog to what he was doing in the Garage at 1:30 am. There was the obligatory lame excuse about borrowing tools to fix a broken down car (we didn't know the guy). He claimed that he didn't want to disturb us.

For some reason we never heard back from the guy...

If the guy is looking to commit a crime, or is on the premises at an unreasonable time, then they are on their own. If they are out behind the barn in the middle of the night, then fall in the pond, it's not our fault if he drowns/gets eaten by the freakin' huge koi...

I believe that you are responsible for keeping a safe path to your front door and back to the road again. Beyong that, you go at your own risk...

 

I'm sick and tired of other people being responsible for someone else's problems. I don't care if you're retarded, drunk, young, old, disabled or just plain stupid, if you come on to my land and somehow manage to hurt yourself it's your own damn fault.

This I do agree with however. There should be some type of 'reasonable' clause involved. Anything that might be viewed as a trap and if it harms someone, sure the property owner is responsiable - unless he has posted easy to see signs stating he has traps on his land (say a farmer is trying to rid his land of rabbits or possums).

 

Ridiculous. Nakia already explained how dangerous icy surface can be. While I agree that there are cases when "creating" problems was just the interest of lawyers and didn't have practical basis, ice is not a joke.
Walking carefully, BTA? How about blind/ill people who have no living relatives/friends and/or cannot afford to pay for someone who helps them?
Carrying a bag of salt? You must be kidding. First of all, the salt needs time to take effect. It would be a very miserable attempt to salt a complete sidewalk of a street, constantly salting/waiting, salting/waiting, ... (Assuming that all people act in the way you support i.e. not cleaning the part of the sidewalk that belongs to their house.)

On a second thought, you there in USA (BTA) and Canada (JSBB) don't have the way to see these things in an unbiased way.
I don't doubt that it's possible that all or most of the well-fed and healthy retired people in your country has no movement problems even at very old age (= walking "carefully" is possible) and have no illnesses (or if yes they are cured effectively). Blind people can probably afford to pay for someone who looks after them if they have no relatives/friends available for help. (As the white stick is not a magical wand which melts snow.)
I have seen countries where old people even cannot afford to buy fundemental things (so low pension), and people with movement problems need to go to work -- no matter if winter or summer -- to earn the minimum for their children. And how about ill/physically handicapped people? No, they don't have a car.
Would your conscience be 100% clear if an seriously ill man broke his neck in front of your house just because you haven't cleaned the sidewalk?

But of course, if we're talking of USA or Canada (in the latter one, the social protection is one of the strongest if not the strongest in the world), only very few if any people have such problems.

Exactly. I agree absolutely.

[ June 24, 2006, 16:28: Message edited by: Baronius ]

 

And what if he cannot afford any new shoes, and using his 10 year-old pair of shoes. (Or can't get such special shoes you mention). This probably cannot happen in USA, but can happen in several other countries where people are poor.
"and also have shoes made for walking in snow/ice." This is your point of view and I don't blame you for it, not your fault. The social security and general welfare in your country makes you think in that way that everyone who needs something will automatically/certainly get it. I have to disappoint you: there are many parts of the world where it is not so simple.

Have you ever walked on ice? It must have been some almost melted ice surface (e.g. due to salt) and mire, I'm sure.
If you had walked on real ice, you would know that not losing your foothold isn't a question of care only, but also of luck's. No need to be ill or physically handicapped. The toughest young man might also fall, it's another question that he won't get hurt at all, usually.
Do you have a car? Do you know what sleety rain is? I can assure you that walking on it is also very difficult, and there are serious accidents with pedestrians (older people), broken legs and stuff. And not because they weren't "careful" enough.


Note: in this discussion, the "ice" that appears in front of the houses on the sidewalk is usually due to snow which melted for some reason (temperature changes and/or pressure) and freezed again -- and not due to water which freezes. (But the latter one is also as slippery, obviously.)

 

Bored, BTA? Playing the Devil's Advocate? Hokay, I'll play.

You want a house that fronts on a public sidewalk? Someone has to keep that sidewalk clean and in good condition. Either you do it or pay someone to do it directly or by paying taxes to the local government to do it. Anyone who wants convenience pays for it in one way or another. We get out of life what we put into it.

Life is just one big nuisance if we choose to live with other people. Now a hermit in the wilderness somewhere has it easy. No one to worry him, no one to care if he lives or dies.

However we are now off topic since the above is not illegal trespassing. If it is illegal the person is, imo, responsible for what happens to him under most situations.

 

I would say, if it's my property and I invited the person there, then it's (partially) my fault and I'd make amends. If it's my property and I didn't invite them, then they have no business being there and they should take full responsibility for what happens to them. If it's not my property, then I'm sure as hell not responsible for them.

For example; I invite a friend over (either explicitly or by means of being friend) and they get hurt. My fault. Unless the injury was caused by them doing something stupid. Someone tries to break into my house and gets hurt. I don't care if they stepped on a land mine (as long as there are warning signs) or fell through a skylight, their fault. If someone happens to be cutting across my unmarked yard and gets hurt, depends. If it was an actual accident (like stepping in a hole or falling) then it's there fault. It it was caused, somehow, by me and my belongings, then probably my fault. If it's not my property, such as a sidewalk on the right of way, then it definitely ain't my fault. In particular to the icy sidewalk, it's either my property in which the old man shouldn't be on it or it ain't my property in which case I shouldn't be held liable. As BTA said, I would feel no worse by someone slipping on ice and getting hurt than by that same person tripping on a root or slipping on gravel or leaves and getting hurt.

So to answer the original question, illegal trespassers should never be allowed to sue for damages. Especially moral damages and lost wages BS.

 

You're wrong again, unfortunately. About a decade ago approximately, there was a blizzard and my father was driving in the mountains. And surprisingly, the main problem wasn't the bad sight circumstances, but the slippery roads. (Obviously the crews couldn't clean them simultaneously with the snow storm...). He was slipping a lot on the serpentines, with a huge (and thus heavy), modern car...

Those are special shoes. I know towns where there are people who don't even know that such exist, or if they do, they don't know how to get it, have no money to get it, or don't have time to get it. This applies to a nice part of population of certain countries.
Anyway, all in all, I won't keep trying to convince you that ice is very slippery despite any caution unless you've special shoes, as it seems hopeless.

This is what I was talking about: "where you live". It is obvious (and okay to me) that one uses his own experience as a basis to form the opinion, but don't forget that rules are always set up by the given community of people, and many factors determine it. One rule may be effective on an area, while another on another area. Anyhow I would like to point out that I respect your opinion, but keep in mind that you formed it based on your experience and circumstances and thus it doesn't generally apply to most regions (and thus isn't generally "true").

Central and Eastern Europe, which I know very well, are not particularly in "cold" climate zone, but I can assure you we've enough broken legs and injured people in Winter, partly due to slippery ground (responsibility of the snow clearing crews and/or houseowners, depending on the place). (And they are not "fool" people who "deserve" it. And no, they haven't got special shoes, and their shoes aren't "slippery-proof", because getting "slippery-proof" shoes is not the central problem of the society.)
It seems that you think that slippery ground, ice and cold weather exists only in regions in colder climates. This is wrong. With your "Siberia" comment you also imply you haven't experienced extreme/problematic weather (and its consequences) or even if you have, you didn't understand its significance. (Perhaps because your region isn't a subject of such weather.)
There are countries where winter is cold, but during the other seasons, there isn't extreme weather (except Summer though, if talking of my region of Europe). You don't have to be in Siberia to experience a comparatively very cold winter.

I agree with the principle generally that homeowners aren't responsible (except specially given cases) for others' injuries in their property, and they shouldn't be forced to do something on their own property. (In fact, property-related law is so strong here that I can shoot down someone trespassing on my property if I felt that he endangered my life or my family's /and in the practice, even in case of weaker conditions/, and law would be supporting me than the victim(s) i.e. less strict and quicker investigation etc. I know of a case when 3-4 thieves were shot down and the houseowner wasn't convicted.)
Note: However, the sidewalk in front of your house is not your property in most countries, to my knowledge.


All in all, you've an opinion that no houseowners should be forced to clean the sidewalk in front of their house. Let's assume I accept it. Here comes the difference: if cleaning it is compulsory per the regional/local law (rule), and you haven't cleaned it and a (not necessarily old) person slipped and got injured, would your conscience be 100% clear? Based on those you've written above, I guess that you (will obviously) say yes...
...But this makes you look highly insensitive (soulless).
This one proves it even more:

So fools deserve injury/death? Have you ever considered the term "fool"? What if he really is a "fool" (in this respect, the correct and non-hurting term would be "mentally handicapped")? Don't say anything like "Those people are cured in special institutes" -- only the most handicapped people are sent there.
And even generally, defining "fool" not psychologically but rather as "ignorant" (this is the meaning you use in the text I quoted, I guess): do ignorant people deserve physical injury/death because of their fault? There are many ignorant people who are otherwise very helpful, family-centric and stuff -- don't they deserve help from those with higher intellect?

[ June 25, 2006, 16:22: Message edited by: Baronius ]