'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 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 ]