News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on 'Right to roam' movement fights to give the commons back to the public. Parent comment

Re:'Right to roam' movement fights to give the commons back ... by Aurornis on Wednesday May 22, 2024 @12:07PM (#40442629)
> 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.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:'Right to roam' movement fights to give the commons back ... by dghlsakjg on Wednesday May 22, 2024 @12:52PM (#40443171)
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.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:'Right to roam' movement fights to give the commons back ... by mminer237 on Wednesday May 22, 2024 @01:05PM (#40443360)
While I generally agree, that doesn't really solve the problem as you can't collect payment from an indigent litigant.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:'Right to roam' movement fights to give the commons back ... by dghlsakjg on Wednesday May 22, 2024 @01:47PM (#40443846)
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.

[ Parent | on HN ]