'Right to roam' movement fights to give the commons back to the public

Re:'Right to roam' movement fights to give the commons back ... by s1artibartfast on Wednesday May 22, 2024 @11:23AM (#40442124)

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

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:'Right to roam' movement fights to give the commons back ... by fwip on Wednesday May 22, 2024 @01:08PM (#40443390)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:'Right to roam' movement fights to give the commons back ... by s1artibartfast on Wednesday May 22, 2024 @01:45PM (#40443829)

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

[ Parent | on HN ]