In Norway, if you tripped and broke your ankle on the landowners land, could you sue them?

Cannot speak for this exact scenario, but generally in western and northern Europe (the only places I am familiar enough with) there doesn’t exist the culture of suing that the US has gained a reputation for - deserved or not.

Could you sue them in the US? Let's say you asked and got permission, "can we trek through your forest", first.

In the west, there's a 'duty of care', in which you must keep your facilities reasonably safe, but typically the prerequisite is EITHER (A) implicitly inviting people onto your property or (B) specifically inviting people onto your property (via advertisement, word of mouth, etc). If this duty of care is breached and someone suffers injury because of that, the property owner can be sued for damages like medical expenses.

Scenario B is the most common scenario in that you shouldn't have to be worried about stepping on nails or tripping over things if you go to your local ikea.

Scenario A is more state-by-state, but at least in my state (Georgia), you can "imply invitation" onto your property for something as small as an opening in a fence on your land, or a beaten pathway that seems to be frequented by dirt bikes - this is why 'no trespassing' signs are commonplace, so that you know that the property owner does not invite you onto their land and thus any injuries are at your own expense.

Great question! The real answer is "you can always sue anyone for anything, but you may not win".

But, since this is about Wyoming, let's see...

https://law.justia.com/codes/wyoming/2016/title-34/chapter-1...

As a non-lawyer, I'd say they have no liability. As a landowner, I'd never personally chance it, but I would see if I could give a 6' portion of the land to the state/federal government.

Yes

Not unless you tripped due to a tripwire set by the landowner, or similar edge cases like that.

That's part of the problem in the US. Hunter tripped on a branch? That's a lawsuit!

There are virtually zero situations where a landowner is liable for the injury of trespassers in the middle of nowhere.

I don't agree with "exactly zero", but it's frequently overstated and the "tripped on a branch" situation is definitely not a concern.

However, "attractive nuisance" has gone pretty far, at least here in California.

edit: I think the parent commenter edited their comment, but I'll leave mine as-is.

I didn't edit the comment. You read it how you wanted to.

No need to be rude, I just thought "exactly zero" was a quote when you apparently wrote "virtually zero".

How was your parent poster rude? The poster seemed simply to be stating a fact.

It's not rude for me say it's not me, it's you.

Except that is not true, at all. You’d like it to be, logically, but if a trespasser (even if they are not aware they are) trips off a poorly maintained trail or an old rock wall, or etc … the landowner will be in court.

If it can happen when a thief breaks into your house and breaks his leg.. it can happen in the woods.

Of course: depending on state, etc.

In the case I'm thinking of, where it's a large tract of vacant unimproved land, thats not true at all. There are no trails or rock walls to speak of. There's no house. It's just land. If you can find a case where this happened I'd love to read about it.

The idea that someone in the US walking along basically unmaintained paths in the woods that may be on private property will routinely sue somebody if they trip and break a bone is a trope that really needs to die. It's just idiocy and doesn't even fall in the man bites dog category but more in the man bites mountain lion category.

People who live in rural and semi-rural areas in the US are mostly pretty chill in general with people respectfully using their property, especially at the edges, in my experience.

> If it can happen when a thief breaks into your house and breaks his leg.. it can happen in the woods.

This is a non-sequetor and is most cettainly false.

A house is hypothetically meant to be safe, woods are not - you could be eaten by a bear.

I would think universal healthcare would take the wind out of the sails of a lot of injury lawsuits.

no idea why this is downvoted

It happens sometimes and I try and mostly succeed not to get too worried about it.

But this is definitely one of my pet theories as to the litigiousness of America - healthcare is exceptionally expensive and in theory someone gets stuck with the bill, so when someone (especially someone without insurance) gets injured the game begins.

I saw it personally on an uninsured friend who's arm bones were broken into pieces by a car wreck through no fault of his own. He was put back together pretty well, but to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars.

There are other reasons to sue for injury, but it would be nice to think that they aren't so the injured person is able to escape bankruptcy from medical debt.

Yeah it seems like, it doesn't automatically solve all problems, but the comment made no such grand claims. I don't see how "take the wind out of a lot of injury suits" is even controversial.

I don’t think you could in general in the US either. If you grant someone easement you might have a duty to do basic things like not make concealed traps that could hurt them. Fear of litigation is just another excuse to keep land private.

Why bother when the healthcare is already free?

> Summary -- there are public lands in the US that supposedly belong to us all, but private landowners have literally "enclosed" them by encircling them with privately owned plots. It's legal to BE on the public land, but it's not legal to trespass on private land. So unless you can magically teleport onto the public land, you have to trespass to get there

Just because I'm curious: could you parachute in? From a plane flying high enough to be in public airspace.

Or fly a helicopter in?

Yes, but then there is the problem of getting out

Easy, sue the surrounding landowners for entrapment or kidnapping

Equally as frivolous as suing people for trespassing on public land

Just stay until you get arrested for trespassing and "escorted" out.

You and others are attributing ill intent to the landowners that I did not read in the article. While it is true they receive that benefit from this situation, they aren't the ones who created it. They didn't decide which land to make public and which to make private. They are simply playing the hand they've been dealt.

Is there a scenario where pressing charges and a civil suit for corner crossing doesn't involve ill will?

The Montana rancher quoted in the article seemed to have a reasonable justification for it. I can't say I fully agree with him or that I'd press charges for it but he doesn't sound like he has ill intent. People firing guns and scaring his kids, trespassing deep into his land, parking in his driveway etc. And local law enforcement stretched thin and unable to respond consistently. So his position is basically I'm going to do everything I can to keep these people away from my property. That's understandable.

Those scenarios are different than the one I mentioned. Those are also different than the WY ranch case scenario.

You asked me a question, I answered it.

And you failed to answer it by injecting other scenarios.

> Is there a scenario where pressing charges and a civil suit for corner crossing doesn't involve ill will?

This is what you asked me.

I think perhaps you intended to ask me something else.

The answer to that question is 'yes' and I gave you an example of such. Were the Montana rancher to press charges for corner-crossing, based on his stated reasoning, I don't think that would be ill will.

You didn't specific any restrictions on which situations apply or do not apply to your question.

Dear God, when is pressing charges not ill will? You clearly wish the government its force to punish them!

This would be true if lobbyists didn’t exist.

Too often those who benefit from the status quo masquerade under a pretense of helplessness while using their position to place a toe on the scales.

I’m curious though, are you in the category of benefiting landowner? Or coming to their defense in the name of something else?

I came to the defense of the truth. I read the whole article and I read nothing in it that would suggest the land owners have the ill intent that many attribute to them. It seems to be an assumption people quickly jump to but it's not in the article.

The article mentions one person with major ill intent:

  The hunters who used a ladder to corner-cross in Wyoming now face a civil lawsuit from the owner of the private land whose airspace they stepped through, in addition to the original criminal trespass charge. Their criminal case, currently set for April 14th, will take place in a local court and therefore will not establish legal precedent. However, on March 31st, a judge ordered for their civil case (that is, the one brought by the landowner) to be moved to federal district court, where the outcome could serve as precedent in future cases. Whatever comes next, this legal gray area could very well remain clear as fog for decades to come.

I think you're making an assumption of ill intent. That or you're relying on information that is not in the quote you just provided. Pressing charges for using a ladder to corner-cross does not by itself indicate ill intent. At least to me. Why did they press charges for that? What was their intent in doing so?

> Too often

Any evidence for that happening here?

I’m curious though, are you in the category of benefiting non-landowner? Or coming to their defense in the name of something else?

In this particular instance, they very much created the situation. The landowner called multiple law enforcement agencies until they found one that was willing to push it to prosecution, which the state lost.

Landowners own the land, but they can decide to not prosecute people "trespassing" over the corners (which, AFAIK, has no effect on their private land in any way whatsoever).

I'm sure most landowners aren't POS and most do not. But this guy did, and gave the hunters a big fine and a big legal challenge because they were in his "airspace" for no more than a couple minutes. Which is why we need a codified law, so hunters and campers don't even have to worry about this in the future.

They can decide not to prosecute for criminal trespass. This is entirely the landowners fault.

> there are public lands in the US that supposedly belong to us all, but private landowners have literally "enclosed" them by encircling them with privately owned plots.

Bad summary. The private land owners didn't create this checkboard mess, the government did.