I live in the US, and I have a "large" amount of property that is clearly marked for no-trespassing. The reason for this is the prior landowner was forced to sell when a trespasser drowned in the pond on the property and the landowner was sued, successfully, by their family.

If there were clear laws regarding trespassers and liability, I would gladly take the no trespassing signs down. I don't care if someone wants to go swim or fish on the very nice pond we have, but I absolutely will not lose my house for someone I don't know.

In the US, at least for most states I'm aware of, the attractive nuisance doctrine applies. And almost anything can be considered an attractive nuisance. It just sucks for everyone because it means the public and property owners lose out.

From my reading, the attractive nuisance doctrine applies to children - who I would have thought would be the people least likely to pay attention to "No Trespassing" signs?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance_doctrine

That doesn't negate the parent point, and it's not just about attractive nuisance, although childproofing 100 acres is a ridiculous task. There's also been successful suits from people who get injured after breaking and entering locked buildings

All of the suits of this type that I'm aware of have been pretty well misrepresented by the media or person telling the story. Generally they fall into a couple of categories:

1) The person injured was a child (usually omitted from the story). 2) The owner of the building knowingly set a dangerous trap for intruders (e.g: a shotgun pointed at the front door). 3) Ended in settlement with no admission of wrongdoing by any party. 4) Totally made up.

E.g: the popular "A burglar fell through a skylight and broke his ankle" story was actually a teenager, who climbed on the roof of his school to try to point a floodlight at the basketball court, and fell through a skylight, becoming permanently disabled. They settled out of court.

for what it is worth, I think the breaking and entering case is distinct from attractive nuisance, which is much more common.

IINAL BUT, This depends on the state you live in, New Hampshire for example I believe your liability is much more limited.

OK. Now tell me how that helps the people who don't live in New Hampshire.

This was a recent issue here with regards to privately owned mountain peaks, with the owners shutting down due to liability concerns.

https://kdvr.com/news/colorado/a-simple-sign-will-allow-acce...

After they were indemnified from liability the peaks opened back up.

> I would be surprised if that were really the case. I'm sure people would say that is the reason but I rather doubt that is the real reason.

It's a real reason, even if it's not as likely to happen as people think it is.

The example of someone tripping on a root and suing for damages would get tossed out of court. However, getting to that point could require you to hire a lawyer, deal with a lot of hassle, spend money, and other things you'd rather avoid.

However, there are many examples of land owners being sued for various things that happen on their property. Ironically, one of the arguments for holding the landowner responsible in these cases is to demonstrate that they didn't actively stop people from entering the land and doing whatever got them hurt or killed. If it can be shown that the area was a popular or well-known destination for local kids, for example, you have a different set of legal responsibilities.

Likewise, if you know something is dangerous and you don't make an effort to keep people out, you could bring legal liability upon yourself.

It's a real thing. The near limitless legal interpretations makes it logical to lock down a property rather than risk it.

The obvious counterpoint is to create strong exclusions in the law, and to allow victims of frivolous suits to pursue costs of defending.

The "right to roam" generally applies to unimproved or undeveloped land, so an exemption for injuries caused by natural features and activities compatible with legal land use should go some way to alleviating concerns.

If you are 'right to roaming' across my land and I have a legal quarry pit that you fall into, I should be immune, and you should be paying my lawyer's bill.

While I generally agree, that doesn't really solve the problem as you can't collect payment from an indigent litigant.

That's a completely separate legal issue.

What you will find, is that indigent claimants have a hard time finding a lawyer for frivolous cases when the law is written clearly.

Lawyers don't take contingency cases that they know they are going to lose, and people that can afford to shove a frivolous case through the system by paying a lawyer hourly have enough money to pay a second lawyer.

Search online for beware of dog lawsuits in the US as an example of liability. The problem is that these laws vary by jurisdiction, so for example in California those signs do not protect the homeowner if someone is bitten on their land [1]. Michigan State University has a comprehensive overview of dog bite laws in the US indicating where "beware of dog" signs legally protect the owner from lawsuits [2] when someone trespasses.

[1]: https://www.enjuris.com/california/premises-liability/beware...

[2]: https://www.animallaw.info/topic/table-dog-bite-strict-liabi...

To be clear though: No matter the interaction between postings and liability, successfully excluding people does protect you because it prevents the injury in the first place.

This is a good example of the difference between an excuse and a reason. The excuse people use to oppose roaming is "risk of lawsuits" but the actual reason is the "what's mine is mine and you can't use it" mentality.

If you own the land I don’t see any why it’s a bad thing to not want others trespassing on it. No diff than I don’t want people randomly deciding to sit in my car for whatever reason while I’m at work.

Keep in mind that 'right to roam' applies to unimproved and (some) agricultural land, and roamers can't disturb the right of enjoyment of the owner. This isn't your normal urban backyard.

Its more like someone walked through the parking spot that you paid to park in on their way to somewhere else.

Some folks absolutely want their own private fiefdoms. I've got a "neighbor" right now that's archetypical. In less than a year of moving in he's already made ham-handed attempts to scam me out of control of my right of way, been an apocalyptic pain in the ass to the young couple that just cleared a couple acres and built a house next to his property, and made several attempts to discuss creating an HOA on our road. Then there are folks like me that are exhausted by having to navigate other people's agendas and just want to be left the fuck alone. Anyway, you're spot on. All of the pearl clutching about liability is just the socially acceptable excuse folks offer for their behavior.

Yes I want my own kingdom. I worked my ass off to get where I am, purchased a property with land for the sole purpose of solitude and freedom from other people. Being able to roam my own property and be free of social interaction and interruption. Is that not my right?