Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="rrnut282"] You're taking a hypothetical situation to an extreme to force others to agree to your conclusion.  Who can argue against an innocent child?  Irregardless, I don't build booby traps and I still would feel bad about a child dying on my property, even if I had contributed nothing to that death.  But that doesn't entitle the parents (who were supposed to be protecting and educating the child) to compensation from me or my insurance company.  As a parent myself, they will have my sympathies, but not my wallet.[/quote]Yes I am citing an extreme example to make my point, but the example is be a valid representation of my point.  When you suggest that I want to force others to agree with my conclusion, perhaps I should clarify what my conclusion is.  It is not that the property owner is always 100% liable for death or injury to all trespassers despite the owner's posting of no trespassing signs.  My conclusion is that the property owner is sometimes partially liable for death or injury to a trespasser.But your conclusion seems to be that a property owner is never liable for death or injury to a trespasser simply because the trespasser should not have entered the property where the death or injury occurred.  I disagree with this never liable position, so I offered an extreme example in order to refute that position.  There is a lot of gray area.  And with my extreme example, you can see that there is moral and logical reasoning behind the property owner being liable in at least some cases.Larry,I used a child in my example to make my point, and it is true that a trespassing adult would be expected to take on more of the responsibility and blame for their own injury.  However, the principles can carry over to some extent, and apply to adults as well as children, depending on nature of the hazard, the care that the owner has exercised to guard the hazard, and the nature of the trespass.   I have no idea how this would shake out in the case of this bridge fall.  Attractive nuisance does seem to be developed around a child trespasser, as I used to make the point of my example.  However, my general understanding is that the principles are not necessarily confined to cases where an injured trespasser is a child.  Here is an example of an argument to apply attractive nuisance defense to that case of the two boys who were burned by railroad catenary wires."In his 25-page opinion in Klein v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., U.S. District Judge Lawrence F. Stengel found that Pennsylvania courts have recognized the attractive nuisance theory -- outlined in §339 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts -- as a valid exception to the general liability standard for trespassers, and that no Pennsylvania court has ever set an arbitrary age limit."The plaintiffs have presented some evidence that 17-year-old males generally do not have fully mature brains, and as such cannot fully control their impulses or appreciate some risks," Stengel wrote."
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag