Question!!!!!!?

Question

I was just wondering because i heard someone said this and i want to know if it is true. If someone is on someone's property riding a dirt bike or four wheeler and gets hurt. would that person who got hurt be able to sue the person who property it is? And if they dont have any insurance on the property would it come out of there pocket?

Answer 1

depends.

There are three varieties of individuals in this context, namely the types of people who can be on a tract of private land.

First, there are invitees. Sounds just like it is. A good example is a patron at wal mart. The property owner has a duty to make the property safe for the invitee, which includes conducting a reasonable inspection of the premises to uncover hidden dangers. The property owner also has a duty to warn the invitee of hazardous conditions that can not be fixed. Furthermore, property owners assume a duty to rescue an invitee who falls into peril while visiting the property. If an independent contractor hired by the landowner injures an invitee (intentionally or through negligence), the owner can be held vicariously liable. This represents the broadest duty of care owed to any class of visitors to the property.

It should be noted that a property owner who selectively limits entry to the property - to paying customers, to a set number of people, or even in a discriminatory fashion - is nonetheless opening the property to invitees, so long as the property owner holds the property open to some segment of the general public.

Next, in descending order, are licensees. Where licensees are present, activities conducted on the land by or at the behest of the owner of the land must be conducted with the care that a prudent person would show. A duty to warn arises if there is a harmful condition on the land that is hidden from the licensee, so long as the landowner knows of this condition. The licensee falls between the anticipated or discovered trespasser and the invitee on the sliding scale of tort liability assessed to landowners. Whereas the trespasser needs to be protected from known conditions capable of causing death or serious injury, the licensee must be warned of all known dangers. However, unlike an invitee, a licensee has no standing to sue for dangerous conditions unknown to the property owner.

Historically, emergency workers — police and firefighters — have been considered licensees. However, they are barred from recovering from injuries caused by inherent risks of their jobs. Generally such injuries are instead covered by worker's compensation.

Then there are trespassers. With respect to the duties owed to trespassers, there are two types of trespassers to consider. First, there is the undiscovered trespasser, to whom the property owner owes no duties whatsoever. Second, there is the anticipated or discovered trespasser. To those parties, the landowner owes a duty of common humanity (See British Ryls Board v. Herrington)- a duty to warn them of deadly conditions on the land which would be hidden to them, but of which the property owner is aware. A warning sign at the entrance to the land will suffice for this purpose. However, a property owner is under no duty to ascertain hazards on his own property, and can not be held liable for failing to discover a deadly hazard which injures a trespasser.

Furthermore, a trespasser who is injured while on the defendant's property can not sue under a theory of strict liability, even if the landowner was engaged in ultrahazardous activities, such as the keeping of wild animals, or the use of explosives. Instead, the trespasser must prove that the property owner was negligent.

A property owner may use reasonable (nondeadly) force to prevent a person from trespassing on their land, or to expel a trespasser. However, a property owner may not force a trespasser off of his land if doing so would expose the trespasser to a risk of serious injury. For example, a trespasser who takes shelter in a stranger's barn during a powerful storm can not be expelled until the storm is over.

So, it depends on your status and whether the condition that caused the injury was known to the owner

Answer 2

The answer is different for each state, but the general theme is that landowners owe a duty of care to those on their property. And a breach of that duty of care that results in damages can be negligence.

The duty of care, however, varies depending upon the relationship between the landowner and the person injured. There are basically four categories: an unknown trespasser, a known trespasser, a social guest, and an public/business guest. Again, each state interprets these doctrines somewhat differently, but a majority of states apply the following as a basic formula.

If the landowner doesn't know that people are trespassing, then their only duty is generally to not set active traps for the unwary.

Even the landowner knows (or reasonably should know) that people are trespassing, then the standard of care is to post warning signs for any known artificial dangers. In other words, anything that the landowner has changed from the natural landscape, if the landowner knows it is dangerous, Failure to post warning signs would be a breach of their duty.

That's for trespasses. If the person injured has the landowner's permission to be on the property, a higher standard applies. For social guests, the landowner is under a duty to investigate (to find out what dangers are there), and a duty to either warn or to make the condition safe. For natural (not artificial) conditions, the landowner is generally under a duty to warn if they know about the danger. So a landowner who permits people to ride on their property (even implicitly) would need to meet those standards (again, as interpreted by each local state's court system).

For public/business guests, the standard is even higher. If the landowner charged access fees, or had a public course that they openly invited people to use, then there is a duty to inspect for all dangers, and to make those dangers safe for reasonable use. There is also, however, the doctrine of Assumption of the Risk, where a landowner has notified the person of potential dangers, and the person knowingly and voluntarily chooses to encounter those dangers. Black diamond skiing and extreme racing are examples of this.

So, for negligence to attach, you would need to find the appropriate standard of care based on the situation, then determine whether the landowner has breached that standard. Then, determine if the breach actually caused the injuries, and whether those injuries were foreseeable ('proximate caused').

Many of these are complex legal and factual questions, and whenever your legal rights/obligations are at issue, the best option is to speak with an attorney licensed in your state to get accurate information. Check your local listings.

Answer 3

Probably. In reality they should not be able though. Even if the rider was given permission to ride there it should be understood they did so at their own risk.

Now IF the owner of the property set traps and pitfalls to cause intentional harm that would be a purple horse(horse of a different color).

Answer 4

That is true. If you have an accident on my property (your fault) then there is a strong possibility that my insurance would have to pay if you pushed it. However, if I had a camera on you and we could clearly see it was your fault, or you set up the accident then it would be dismissed, or a case of fraud.

That is why businesses are so careful about safety (and having cameras)

Answer 5

you can sue anyboudy you want...now whether you win a judgment against that person is another matter entirely. If the person sued doesn't have insurance, then I suppose the judgment would come out of their pocket/

Answer 6

Yes. And if the injured person goes to court, sues and wins, it could come out of the land owners "pocket".

Answer 7

are you able to sense the affection tonight?-Elton John How Deep Is Your Love?-BeeGees the position Is the affection?-Black Eyed Peas i do not love You a lot Do I?-guy Clark Whats Your call;How Do You Sleep?-Jesse McCartney Are You Gonna Be My female?-JET Do You Wanna contact Me?-Joan Jett would You bypass with Me?-Josh Turner Da Ya imagine i'm horny?-Rod Stewart in case you elect some better you let me understand, lol.

Answer 8

Yes, and yes. Don't let people do things like that on your property, you are just waiting for bad things to happen. If you gave them permission to do it and that can be proven in court, then you are screwed.

Answer 9

Yes, thanks to the scum bag lawyers out there. This is why I string piano wire really really tight on the outer edges of my property. Keeps the ATV'ers and dirt bikers outta there. When one of 'em gets beheaded, they tend to stay away.

Answer 10

my dourters neighbours h ouse is in poor condition windows &doors are fulling out & glass hanging the house is full of stacks of pappers and stacked in frount door were it can be set light ot back garden is over grown and is bringing mice rats and wasp nests witch is dangerouse for her 3yar old to play what help can I get