Property owners liability questions...

[Stush]

Can any of the legals folks point me to a good resource that explains the ins and outs of property owner's liability? Specific to PA would be great, but any good resource that can be understood by a layman would be appreciated.

Here's the situation:

I sold young nephew several wooded acres. A neighbor on an adjoining property has an 8 year old with a quad. The kids dad approached my nephew and asked him if the kid could ride the quad in the woods. My nephew, wanting to be a nice guy, said that he could. I have tried till I'm blue in the face to explain that it is not a good idea, but he has established a friendship with this neighbor and says that "they are nice people and would never sue me". Sigh....

Tried to explain that if the kid does a header into a tree and ends up dead or in a wheelchair that the fact that they are "nice people" isn't going to matter one bit, but he thinks that his uncle is a crazy old coot that is paranoid. I'd like to be able to give him some good well written resource that can serve as a primer on the basics of property ownership. Some things you have to learn for yourself - that I know. I just don't want to see this kid get screwed over learning a lesson the hard way.

[where I want to]

I can't but have you tried searching the net with liability, child or minor, property, etc? I would suspect you will see a lot.

[MN Gardener]

My BIL had a kid hurt himself on a 4 wheeler on his property. They were on medicaid (welfare insurance) and they sued him for the medical bills. I would think any insurance co would do that.

[Stush]

I have tried the Google search. Most of what I find is personal injuries lawyers willing to sue the landowner if you have been hurt on an ATV! That alone should tell you something, right?

I even tried to tell him, that it doesn't matter if his friend doesn't sue him. If they go to the hospital, and they ask how it happened.... hmmmm.....

As soon as his insurance finds out that it was an ATV accident, they are going to try and go after the landowner, hoping that their liability insurance will pay, right? Or am I completely off my rocker?

Tried to further explain that his homeowners insurance may very well not pay for a claim of that type as it is not likely to be a covered use of the property, etc. End result is that he would could end up being responsible for the medical bills, etc - right out out of his pocket. Tried to say that even a short hospital stay could bankrupt him. You can get to a quarter or a half million in short order and that doesn't even take into account if his "friend" doesn't turn around and sue him?

Or maybe his old uncle is a paranoid nut?

[where I want to]

I remember Lucille Balls stories about how poor her family became when her father was sued when a non-related child here themselves on their swingset. The Ball family had to pay a good chunk of their income every month to the child for years and years.

[arabian knight]

And that is why I carry a One million Dollar "Umbrella" policy, that should take care of anything like that should something happen. And at only $152 a year in premium, it is cheap insurance for the "Just In Case" if something happens. It also protects me in auto accidents also should something happen., and my regular auto policy is not enough.

[tlrnnp67]

It's not the nice neighbor who he needs to worry about - it's the neighbor's insurance company.

My sister's sister-in-law fell on one of her friends' icy front porch and ended up breaking her hip and needing a hip replacement. She never even considered suing her friend and thought her medical insurance would cover it. Well, her insurance company sued her friends' homeowner's insurance company to recover their money. She was mortified when she found out.

[Helena]

call and speak to your insurance agent over this .

[Navotifarm]

Since the nephew has already given permission, he doesn't want to revoke it. He believes the atver is riding at his own risk and won't sue him. The best way to handle that is to A)crank out. A contract that says that and get the parents of the kid to sign it with notarization. Then post some signs saying "Ride at your own risk."
If there is a local horse riding stables nearby, they probably have such contracts he can model his on. Also the parents should provide proof of insurance (as in give him copies).
There are surely some atv-riding forums (or maybe trail bike riding forums) where this question has been asked and answered with sample contracts. Don't forget, the kid will probably invite his pals to ride on the nephew's property, too! There will be more than one atver to worry about! Gangs of them, I bet!
There's also the matter of the racket they make and the damage they do and do they have spark arresters or will they burn the woods down? Atver's are all problem and no benefit, from my experience, anyway.

[tiffnzacsmom]

He can be liable especially since permission was given. Less than a mile from here a child was sledding ride on someone else's hill and went onto the road into a path of a tow truck driver who could not stop in time even though he was well below the speed limit on the road. The towing company, driver and property owner's were all liable and the owner's weren't even home or knew the family of the child. BUT they never chased kids off of their hill or called the cops so it was considered consent.

[TnAndy]

Originally Posted by Stush

but he thinks that his uncle is a crazy old coot that is paranoid.

Well, clearly, you ARE a crazy old coot....but I would point out that even paranoids like us have enemies....ahahahaaa.

Seriously, your nephew has clearly not enough life experience to know that people can and will sue over anything. Show him the yellow pages out of your local phone book under "attorneys" and point out WHY they have those full page ads which say "BEEN HURT....COME SEE US...WE CAN HELP (us) !"

You can probably show him anything you want, but as the saying goes...."you can lead a horse to water..."

You've done your part....you told him....now simply hope for the best.

[amelia]

The fact that someone is injured on your property does not, in and of itself, result in liability. Generally speaking, some breach of duty is required, such as the failure to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition or to warn of hazards.

The laws are complex with respect to the duties of landowners, and in most states depend upon the status of the injured person as an invitee, licensee, trespasser, etc. Some states have statutes that specifically insulate a landowner from liability in the event of injuries sustained while engaging permissively in the recreational use of private property. The policy behind these statutes is to accommodate--or at least not discourage--neighborly accommodations such as the one you're describing.

In your case, the fact that the contemplated use involves an eight-year-old is concerning. My guess is that most juries could, in view of this child's age, view the situation as negligent on the part of all parties concerned. For that reason, it's not a situation that I'd feel comfortable blessing from a legal standpoint, regardless of the existence of a statute such as the one described above.

You might encourage your nephew to talk to his insurance company about this. Chances are they'll not be happy. This would provide an "easy out" for your nephew in explaining why it is simply not possible for him to provide the permission requested.

This post does not constitute, and should not be construed as, legal advice and should not be relied upon. There is no substitute for a consultation with a licensed attorney.

[palani]

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=us

TORT DUTIES OF LANDOWNERS
The common law divided the visitors to land into three
categories: invitee, licensee, and trespasser. In a leading case,
Robert Addie & Sons (Collieries), Ltd. v. Dumbreck,11 the House of
Lords described the duties allocated to these categories as follows:
The highest duty exists towards those persons who fall into
the first category, and who are present by the invitation of the
occupier. Towards such persons the occupier has the duty of
taking reasonable care that the premises are safe.
In the case of persons who are not there by invitation, but who
are there by leave and license, express or implied, the duty is
much less stringent—the occupier has no duty to ensure that
the premises are safe, but he is bound not to create a trap or to
allow a concealed danger to exist upon the said premises,
which is not apparent to the visitor, but which is known—or
ought to be known—to the occupier.
Towards the trespasser the occupier has no duty to take
reasonable care for his protection or even to protect him from
concealed danger. The trespasser comes on to the premises at
his own risk. An occupier is in such a case liable only where
the injury is due to some willful act involving something more
than the absence of reasonable care. There must be some act
done with the deliberate intention of doing harm to the
trespasser, or at least some act done with reckless disregard of
the presence of the trespasser

[agmantoo]

A woman suffered severe cuts when her leg was hit by the propeller of a boat
she was attempting to board. She sued, claiming that the boat began to move
before she was safely aboard. The injury cost the boat owner $175,000.
• At an end-of-school swim party, a 16-year old dove and hit his head on the
bottom of the pool. He became a quadriplegic, and the case resulted in a $1.5
million settlement against the homeowner.
• A 5-year old suffered brain damage when a dinner bell at his grandfather’s
home fell and struck him in the head. A lawsuit against the grandfather led to
a $500,000 settlement.
(From Kiplinger’s Personal Finance Magazine – Article by Ronaleen Roha)
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________________

[keweenawkats]

Get an attorney's opinion in writing and give it to your nephew! And maybe, show him the posts here.

We've dealt with a related situation here and consulted an attorney. What an eye-opener!

It is simply responsible land ownership to know the legalities about fence lines, trespassing, consent to use land, etc. MY DH thought he knew all about it and didn't want to consult an attorney. Once we did so the very first thing the man said was, "you are wide open to liability."

Our land has been used as a dump, storage area, party spot and hunting area by various neighbors for years. There is evidence of this throughout the land! When we bought the place we passed the word that it was no longer available for their use. That didn't stop anyone from continuing their behaviors. We posted the land and some of the behavior stopped.

We grew disgusted and had a survey done, ordered 1650 feet of four foot wire fence and poles and began installing it. The first thing to know is the fence must be installed within our side of the boundary - so we own the fence!

Then two neighbors refused to move their stuff off our land. The township supervisor came out, took photos of the junk and sent letters to the landowners asking them to remove the stuff. No response thus far but we continue to install fence.

Until the land is fenced in and posted and we're willing to prosecute any and all trespassers we have little defense.

The scary thing is most of these people walk around our land while drunk or high and often have loaded guns. The supervisor, whose day job is in law enforcement, advised doing a background check on one adjoining land owner. WOW is all I can say of the results.

Another thought is, as the economy continues down the toilet people get desperate and what they may not have considered in the past is now option. Money talks, especially if they don't have it.

[edcopp]

Originally Posted by Helena

call and speak to your insurance agent over this .

Why?

Your insurance agent is not a lawyer, but only trained to sell more insurance.

[amelia]

One other thing. . . There is a rule of law known as the doctrine of "attractive nuisance." Simply stated, it provides that a landowner can be liable for condtions existing on his property which might not constitute an unreasonable hazard to thinking adults, but which could foreseeably attract the interest of, and cause a danger to, children. Such conditions could consist of anything from an unfenced swimming pool to an abandoned refrigerator.

The situation you have described is not really an "attractive nuisance" case, but I bring this doctrine to your attention because it highlights the fact that the law imposes a heightened duty of care on landowners when it comes to children. I don't see any principled distinction between the "attractive nuisance" cases and a situation, such as you nephew's, in which he grants actual permission for a young child to traverse his property (and whatever hazards it might present) on a motorized vehicle.

This post does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. Consult a licensed attorney for information and advice on how the law applies to you.

[Common Tator]

I wouldn't have allowed my own kids ride unsupervised at age 8. What has this child done to convince your nephew that he has the experience, control or judgement to ride unsupervised? Even a mature 8 year old can and will use poor judgment.

Does your nephew understand that he could not only lose the property where it happened, he could lose everything he owns, and still have to pay a sizable chunk of his income for years and years?

[Common Tator]

Here's a thought. We allow Boy Scouts to camp on our ranch several times per year. Supervised, of course. We have them provide us with a certificate of insurance from their insurance, listing us as an additional named insured. If one of the boys or troop leaders is injured or killed on our property, we are covered under their policy.

You could have your nephew ask his neighbor to provide him with a certificate of insurance listing your nephew as an additional named insured. And Stush, if your nephew still owes you money on the transaction, you could make the request yourself, because in that event, your nephew has placed your interest at risk too. In that event, you should also be listed as an additional named insured. If the guy can't or won't provide it, the kid can't ride there.

[navygirl]

I knew a well-off family when I was a kid. Why were they well off? Because they had received a huge settlement when the man of the house stole a truck from a large company and accidently killed himself joyriding. The court claimed that the company didn't do enough a good enough job of securing their vehicles from drunken joy-riders.