JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
I donno, but it used to be our parents taught us about property. We could use the common/public areas to go to a front door (sidewalk, pathway, etc). But if we walked anywhere but that, we were trespassing.

And if we climbed a fence, fell into a pool or what not, we got it twice as bad when we got home. We had no business in that other person's yard, no matter what cool thing was there.

So, I would have to side with the home owner. Where it would stop is if something was done maliciously to cause injuries (punji pit). Oh, we were also taught that if you saw something of value on another's property, it BELONGED to them. End of story, don't touch it, don't take it, don't even think about it.

So the castle doctrine, protection of self/family/guests as well as the property portion is what is needed. Additionally, we need to teach our kids/adults what "property" really is. That includes my time, money, treasure, real property, etc. Because looking at how people want to reach into my wallet to enrich themselves (whether government or people with no common sense to stay out of my yard) is just wrong.

Oh, and I grew up on a farm. You trespass on land and get trampled by a bull/cow or cut yourself on the barbed wire, too bad, so sad. Don't trespass.
 
This reminds me of the Illegal debate!

Everyone always banters back and forth about these people having rights. They forget that in order to even have this to debate they (Illegals) have to break several laws. Hence the terminoligy "Illegal".

In the current "Castle Doctrine" debate the nay sayers just keep talking about the rights of the "Tresspasser". Yes the illegal activity that under current law allows one to prey on innocent land owners thus enabling "Economic Justice" (Lib-tard, progressive terminoligy) to take place.

I can't get to the gun show fast enough to sign this petition.

Zach, truly you seem like a nice guy but the laws as is are the problem with our swifly declining nation.


T_H
 
Nice theory, but that's never at any time been the law in this or any other jurisdiction with an Anglo-American legal system. Tort law was around for centuries before the word "progressive" even existed. Irresponsible people have always had to pay when their irresponsibility hurt somebody else.

I'll stay in the real world while you enjoy your tinfoil-hat fantasyland.


OK maybe I wasn't clear. I understand what negligence is and how people can be charged for it. I understand that this is the way the law is now. I'm talking about natural rights that are ours and being sued for digging a hole on your property and some asshat falls in is bull. Thats why I'm supporting this law.
And I didn't insult you so lets keep it above the belt here. Besides I don't even own tinfoil.
 
I have read this thread and am concerned about how selfish we have be come as a society. for example the 10' hole argument, the way I see it as a property owner I would make the hole safe not for liability reasons but because it is the right thing to do. If I was walking next to someone’s property and saw a ten foot hole commonsense instilled into me by my elders would tell me not to go near it and not to trespass onto other peoples property. If I had a child I would make sure they learned to no trespass and be careful ten foot holes and other dangerous things. No amount of litigation and laws will take the place of people thinking for themselves and watching out for one another in a society.
 
No amount of litigation and laws will take the place of people thinking for themselves and watching out for one another in a society.
:s0155:
Thank you Westernsky20!

Unfortunately lawyers don't think like that. And even more unfortunate, is that many lawmakers agree with them,...
Of course many lawmakers are lawyers so,... Take it from there.
 
As far as the petition goes.......I signed it today at the PDX show. :s0155::s0155:

As far as "Attractive nuisance" laws go, let me pose a very real (too me) hypothetical situation. I have a rural property in another state. That said property has a 6' high chain link fence surrounding the entire perimeter. Posted at every locked gate to the property are "NO TRESPASSING" signs and they are also posted at every 50' along the perimeter. Located on the land are an old trailer, an old swing set, and a creek runs through the land. Now according to the Law if one of the local kids who, despite the fence and signs, comes on the land (which I find evidence of quite regularly) and gets hurt - even in the creek- I CAN BE SUED AND HELD LIABLE UNDER "ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE" LAWS. :huh: WTF!

Please, let me know how that is OK with some of you! I have done all I can reasonably do but it doesn't matter. When do the trespassers take responsibility for their own actions!
 
As far as the petition goes.......I signed it today at the PDX show. :s0155::s0155:

As far as "Attractive nuisance" laws go, let me pose a very real (too me) hypothetical situation. I have a rural property in another state. That said property has a 6' high chain link fence surrounding the entire perimeter. Posted at every locked gate to the property are "NO TRESPASSING" signs and they are also posted at every 50' along the perimeter. Located on the land are an old trailer, an old swing set, and a creek runs through the land. Now according to the Law if one of the local kids who, despite the fence and signs, comes on the land (which I find evidence of quite regularly) and gets hurt - even in the creek- I CAN BE SUED AND HELD LIABLE UNDER "ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE" LAWS. :huh: WTF!

Please, let me know how that is OK with some of you! I have done all I can reasonably do but it doesn't matter. When do the trespassers take responsibility for their own actions!

The same law which you are afraid of, is the one which will not bite you... Let me explain: In the Attractive nuisance states (simply put) that the person of ownership/responsible has the duty to make reasonable measures to insure a safety level and the second party (i.e. kid) must take above and beyond steps to gain access (i.e. jump your fence) to gain access. The owner of the property is not held liable nor negligent for the second persons actions...

If you have a shinny plane, take the precautions to make it safe! A law to make people do a simple thing which should be natural...
 
The same law which you are afraid of, is the one which will not bite you... Let me explain: In the Attractive nuisance states (simply put) that the person of ownership/responsible has the duty to make reasonable measures to insure a safety level and the second party (i.e. kid) must take above and beyond steps to gain access (i.e. jump your fence) to gain access. The owner of the property is not held liable nor negligent for the second persons actions...

If you have a shinny plane, take the precautions to make it safe! A law to make people do a simple thing which should be natural...

The problem is that it does not work that way. It has been explained by both my attorney and insurance rep that just fencing the property is not enough in the eyes of the law under Attractive nuisance doctrine. I was advised to also take down or fence off the swing set or relocate it so as it can not be seen from anywhere outside my property.:huh: Also to put a separate fence along the banks of the creek where it runs through my property. How's that for ridiculous?:huh:

So now because some people's kids can't learn, I have to go through great lengths to protect myself.

On a side note. One friend of mine who is a CHP officer bought a house last year with a backyard pool. Now mind you his yard is completely fenced off. His side gates are latched and lock. His house doors leading to the backyard have audible alarms that go off EVERY time the doors are opened. But his insurance company and mortgage company forced him to add a separate unsightly and awkward fence around the perimeter of the pool INSIDE of his fenced yard. Why?!?! Because of "Attractive nuisance doctrine"! Oh and by the way-- he can still be sued even if some kid gets past all of his security features and gets hurt. Even though he has not been negligent they can still take him to court. There is no protection in the law for him. Now a jury may side in his favor or not (can't tell with jury's these days) but he would still have to defend himself in court at his own expense. Why? Because some kid jumped a fence.

The laws (like many others) are well intentioned but lack common sense.

If it's not yours DON'T TOUCH IT!

PS. This is from a lawyers website about Attractive nuisance--

"Attractive Nuisance

Seeking Justice for Injured California Children Since 1998

Has your child been seriously injured on a portion of property attractive to their sense of play and curiosity?
Was negligence by the property owner a contributing factor to the injury?
If so, we can help at Law Offices of Louis J. Bertsche in San Diego.
An attractive nuisance lures children to investigate it, and serious injuries can result. Abandoned construction and work sites and swimming pools are typical attractive nuisances.
Don't let factors such as trespassing laws or a physician's minimization of your child's injuries prevent your child from seeking compensation for medical expenses and pain and suffering. Skilled child injury attorney Louis J. Bertsche's has established a track record of success over 15 years of service to Southern California clients."
 
The problem is that it does not work that way. It has been explained by both my attorney and insurance rep that just fencing the property is not enough in the eyes of the law under Attractive nuisance doctrine. I was advised to also take down or fence off the swing set or relocate it so as it can not be seen from anywhere outside my property.:huh: Also to put a separate fence along the banks of the creek where it runs through my property. How's that for ridiculous?:huh:

So now because some people's kids can't learn, I have to go through great lengths to protect myself.

On a side note. One friend of mine who is a CHP officer bought a house last year with a backyard pool. Now mind you his yard is completely fenced off. His side gates are latched and lock. His house doors leading to the backyard have audible alarms that go off EVERY time the doors are opened. But his insurance company and mortgage company forced him to add a separate unsightly and awkward fence around the perimeter of the pool INSIDE of his fenced yard. Why?!?! Because of "Attractive nuisance doctrine"! Oh and by the way-- he can still be sued even if some kid gets past all of his security features and gets hurt. Even though he has not been negligent they can still take him to court. There is no protection in the law for him. Now a jury may side in his favor or not (can't tell with jury's these days) but he would still have to defend himself in court at his own expense. Why? Because some kid jumped a fence.

The laws (like many others) are well intentioned but lack common sense.

If it's not yours DON'T TOUCH IT!

PS. This is from a lawyers website about Attractive nuisance--

"Attractive Nuisance

Seeking Justice for Injured California Children Since 1998

Has your child been seriously injured on a portion of property attractive to their sense of play and curiosity?
Was negligence by the property owner a contributing factor to the injury?
If so, we can help at Law Offices of Louis J. Bertsche in San Diego.
An attractive nuisance lures children to investigate it, and serious injuries can result. Abandoned construction and work sites and swimming pools are typical attractive nuisances.
Don't let factors such as trespassing laws or a physician's minimization of your child's injuries prevent your child from seeking compensation for medical expenses and pain and suffering. Skilled child injury attorney Louis J. Bertsche's has established a track record of success over 15 years of service to Southern California clients."

1. You are putting a post by an "ambulance chasing" firm!
2. A natural conditions (i.e. your stream) is NOT an attractive nuisance, your lawyer should know that, if not, get a new one!

Children are playful and curious –
traits which are important for learning and exploration, but which can also land them in dangerous situations. Everyday objects on other people's property can irresistibly draw children onto the property, but also present them with hidden dangers.
If your property contains items that both draw children in and threaten them with harm, the law places a special responsibility on you to take steps to protect the children who may come onto your property. This duty is generally called the "attractive nuisance" doctrine.

Typically, the attractive nuisance doctrine has three components:

• The law doesn't expect children to fully comprehend the dangers they may face
• If a property owner has reason to believe that children might come onto their property, the law places a special responsibility on them to prevent harm
• If an owner fails to meet this responsibility, they will most likely be held liable for the child's injuries.

How Can I Tell What's an Attractive Nuisance?

An attractive nuisance is something that is so interesting that it would entice a child into entering another's property. Although this may sound very broad, most courts limit this considerably. For instance, many courts require that the object be man-made and many require that you "maintain" the nuisance in order to be liable. This means that ponds or lakes are generally not attractive nuisances. Also most courts understand that children can hurt themselves on virtually anything, and the law generally presumes that children understand some dangers (e.g., falling from a great height, or touching fire).
What are some typical attractive nuisances?

Typical attractive nuisances include:

• Swimming pools and fountains
• Machinery (lawnmowers, gasoline pumps, etc)
• Wells and tunnels
• Dangerous animals
• Paths and stairs

Attractive nuisances can also take less obvious forms, such as a rooftop. If it's known that the local children climb onto roofs, your roof is easily accessible and you've taken no steps to keep the children away, you may be liable.

Who is protected from attractive nuisances?

What constitutes a "child" differs from court to court, but keep in mind that teenagers may still be considered children in many courts. Attractive nuisance liability is not limited to only very young children.

How can I protect myself from liability?

Take precautions. You are never required to childproof your property, but taking some basic actions to prevent injury goes a long way toward avoiding liability. Courts tend to punish people who didn't seem to care or put any effort into encouraging safety. If you can list the steps you took to prevent injury, many courts will be satisfied, even if they didn't ultimately work.

Follow your state and local laws. There are inevitably a host of local regulations that govern almost any potential attractive nuisance (such as pools). Showing a court that you were abiding by the local law can be decisive in most instances.

Finally use common sense and good judgment. If you see children interested in something on your property, that alone can trigger liability by establishing that you're aware they're interested. Lock it up, fence it up, do whatever you can. Signs are helpful but generally won't save you by themselves – you must take steps to prevent the children gaining access to the attractive nuisance. Your insurance agent will usually have a list of potential items that may be attractive nuisances on your property and have advice for protecting yourself. Last but not least, look out for children in your neighborhood by reporting any obvious dangers to the property owner and your local authorities if need be.
 
This reminds me of a case in Western Oregon twenty or so years ago. Two armed delinquents broke into the attic of an elderly man's house one night, attempting to gain access and burglarize the home---while he was HOME. These rodents managed to fall through the ceiling of his living room, where he was sleeping in front of his TV with a gun beside him. He was suddenly awakened and there was a shootout that left the punks wounded and the old man uninjured and in charge.

THE BURGLARS SUED HIM FOR SHOOING THEM BEFORE THEY COULD SHOOT HIM! They demanded that he pay their medical and recovery bills for their injuries, claiming that he had no right to shoot them as they were not any immanent danger to him, claiming that they fired back only in self-defense. Yup. ALAS, I never read how it all turned out.

What I DO know is that if we had a Castle Doctrine Law in Oregon, such an elderly gentleman would never again have to suffer the outrage of such a lawsuit.........................elsullo :cool:
 
1. You are putting a post by an "ambulance chasing" firm!

These our the exact people who use this law to screw the rest of us, so it is a legitimate concern. The worst part is they create the scenario, and unless you can prove that scenario didn't occur you are held liable. Lawyers aren't exactly known for their moral compass anyway. It also doesn't suprise me to see a guy who's avatar is Lionel Hutz trying to defend a law which makes it easy to sue property owners. I mean it is so much better to sue a property owner since you know they have something of value worth taking. The lack of personal responsibility is ultimately what is destroying this country and this law just further proves that to be true.
 
One more:

Even though all of the usual precautions are taken, a little boy named Kyron Horman wanders away from Skyline Elementary School. Instead of going missing for two weeks, he wanders onto some adjacent land owned by a man named Negligent Bob. Bob is mowing his lawn with a big riding mower. Distracted by a cell phone conversation he's having with... I dunno... the Art Bell show or something, he runs over poor Kyron causing all sorts of awful consequences. Maybe cutting a leg or two off and also slicing open his intestines so he has to live the rest of his life with a colostomy bag and all sorts of other terrible gastric appendages. Under this new law, Negligent Bob (that is to say his insurance company) wouldn't have to pay one cent to poor Kyron or his family.

Comedian Ron White said it best, "you cant fix stupid". If the kid is so stupid that he is going to wander on someone elses property, in front of a lawn mower, instead of walking up to the door then maybe he should get ran over by said lawn mower.

The point Im trying to make is why would the homeowner have to pay because of someone elses stupidity? And ya wonder why we have so many stupid irresponsible people these days.......
 
a woman trespassed on private property to go swimming in a hot springs that was know to "burp" superhot water and got burned. She was trespassing, she went beyond gates, fences, trenches and signs to do it. She's claiming the property owner didn't do enough to keep her out. Wants over 2 million $$.

Deen
NRA Benefactor/Recruiter
WAC member
SWWAC member
 
These our the exact people who use this law to screw the rest of us, so it is a legitimate concern. The worst part is they create the scenario, and unless you can prove that scenario didn't occur you are held liable. Lawyers aren't exactly known for their moral compass anyway. It also doesn't suprise me to see a guy who's avatar is Lionel Hutz trying to defend a law which makes it easy to sue property owners. I mean it is so much better to sue a property owner since you know they have something of value worth taking. The lack of personal responsibility is ultimately what is destroying this country and this law just further proves that to be true.

whatever. you'd sing a very different tune if you were injured because of someone else's negligence. go ahead and keep up your rhetoric until then.
 
This debate is really about whether trial lawyers should get rich when their clients behave stupidly. This notion that the proposal would benefit only insurance companies is baloney. Bear with me here.

The common law once recognized contributory negligence as a defense in tort cases. So if someone carelessly injured himself on another's property, the property owner would not be liable, even if the property owner's premises were in a negligent condition. If you were stupid, and your stupidity was a cause of your being hurt, you couldn't recover against the property owner on whose land you were stupidly trespassing.

Sounds fair, but over time, the common law came to see that doctrine (contributory negligence) as too harsh. So the doctrine of contributory negligence was gradually replaced with "comparative negligence" where each party is responsible on a percentage basis.

Sounds fair in principle, but in practice it tends to encourage sleazy plaintiffs' lawyers to point the finger at anyone available who might conceivably have been partially to blame for his client's injury. That works, because the relative degree of each party's negligence is a classic jury question, meaning that even if he wasn't negligent at all, the property owner has to defend the lawsuit all the way to trial, then possibly on appeal. There's no getting out before that, because the central question is not one for a judge to decide. And litigating a case, even a winning case, is extremely expensive for the property owner, who in almost all cases has no way of getting his costs back even if he wins (unlike the so-called "English system" where the presumption is that the loser pays the attorney fees of the winner).

The sleazy plaintiffs' lawyer knows that, so he'll file suit on behalf of someone who, in a drunken stupor, ignored warning signs and climbed over tall fencing to trespass then get hurt. Sounds ridiculous, but hey, it's worth a shot. Maybe the jury will feel sorry for the stupid plaintiff. And regardless of the ultimate outcome, the property owner is faced with enormous litigation costs and therefore is likely to settle early just to avoid them.

If the property owner happens to be insured, all the better, because there is a ready pool of cash to pay from, and the insurance company won't stand firm against the shakedown. No insurance company takes a hit just to defend a principle. In fact, the sleazy lawyer knows a secret: Although he can't mention the possibility of insurance in court, he knows that juries assume the property owner is insured. So it's "poor [stupid drunk] Jane with her medical bills" against "big insurance company with lots of cash."

The fact is that many property owners are NOT insured for this sort of liability. And even if they are, they end up paying the bill anyway in the form of higher premiums. Ever been in an insured auto accident? What happened to your rates? The insurance company isn't going to suffer the loss; it's going to pass the loss on to the property owner. So even if the property owner is insured for the loss, it's the property owner's $$ ultimately at stake, not that of the insurance company.

What a property-owner-protection law does is bring back a sliver of the old contributory negligence doctrine, limited only to cases of actual trespass, and not including booby traps. You aren't legally "negligent" for the condition of your property vis-a-vis people who shouldn't be there (unless you set a spring gun or other booby trap). In other words, it's not "unreasonable" to keep your property in any condition you like as against trespassers.

In effect, it allows the property owner to say, "Enough of this comparative negligence and shakedowns by sleazy plaintiffs' lawyers. I don't have to keep my house clean if I don't want to; I don't have to make my bed in the morning if I don't want to; I don't have to put my tools away if I don't want to; and I don't have to cover up that hole I want to continue digging in the morning. Why? Because its my property. If you (or your kid) trespasses on my property, you can't complain that I didn't put my tools away. You (or your kid) had no business being there in the first place. Sorry for your loss, but I'm not paying for it, and you aren't going to get rich out of this. So tell your sleazy lawyer to go putz himself."

This proposal would push back against one of the worst excesses of tort law in America. Of course, if one were a law student hoping to be a plaintiffs' lawyer one day, I can see why this would seem like a bad idea.
 
Yep the law will draw some lines you can not step over without fear of consequences and make people think twice before they tresspass. Probably a good idea as things get worse due to a government caused depression to have the legal ability to keep people off your property with due force.

If I tresspass and hurt myself it is my fault not the property owners. I do believe tresspass is illegal but then alot of people don't seem to bother with what is legal and what is not.

jj
 
Probably a good idea as things get worse due to a government caused depression to have the legal ability to keep people off your property with due force.

Good point. Besides the possibility of civil unrest without jobs how do people get ahead, by crimes and lawsuits. Heads the thieves win, tails the property owners lose.
 
I'm not real caught up on this in Oregon, I think Washington has similar laws. The thing I hate was the duty to retreat. Which OR and WA have (at least last time I checked)
I think every state should have the castle doc and it should only have the stand your ground clause.
I shouldn't have to wait until my life is in danger, or worse until I can act on someone.

Two cases that people just made bad decisions:
The guy in oregon who found a stranger sleeping on his couch and shot and killed him? He should go to jail.
When I was a kid a friend of mine had a brother, they were playing in a sprinkler in the backyard, and their neighbor had a "homemade" electric fence separating their properties. The kid was only like 5 and he was wet and fell into the fence. He was electricuted and died. I think someone should have happened to the property owner. Nothing happened.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top