Snow and liability
December 16, 2005 6:26 PM Subscribe
If a bunch of kids decided to have a snowball fight on my lawn, near my drive way and if one of them gets hurt. Can they blame me? It's my lawn, but surely it's not my snow. I shovel my drive way but I do not encourage kids to come and have fights.
I think you have to be proven to be negligent before the kids could succesfully sue you.
posted by lester at 7:02 PM on December 16, 2005
posted by lester at 7:02 PM on December 16, 2005
Where are you? In the United States?
Even if so, I don't think merely having snow on your property constitutes an attractive nuisance.
posted by Count Ziggurat at 7:06 PM on December 16, 2005
Even if so, I don't think merely having snow on your property constitutes an attractive nuisance.
posted by Count Ziggurat at 7:06 PM on December 16, 2005
(And IANAL, but the fact that they were fighting might be important too.)
posted by Count Ziggurat at 7:09 PM on December 16, 2005
posted by Count Ziggurat at 7:09 PM on December 16, 2005
Can they blame me?
Not sure what you're asking. Sure they could blame you. In my opinion they'd be wrong. Are you asking if they could sue you? Or if they sued you, would they win?
If someone gets hurt engaging in an activity voluntarily, I would think he has no one to blame but himself.
posted by knave at 7:22 PM on December 16, 2005
Not sure what you're asking. Sure they could blame you. In my opinion they'd be wrong. Are you asking if they could sue you? Or if they sued you, would they win?
If someone gets hurt engaging in an activity voluntarily, I would think he has no one to blame but himself.
posted by knave at 7:22 PM on December 16, 2005
It depends on how they get hurt. If they get hurt by a snowball thrown from your property, or made from snow on your property - they would not have a legal claim. If they are injured because one of them slips and falls on your property, this is a slightly closer case, but still, you would probably not be liable. (To avoid liability in this situation, post a "No Trespassing" sign).
Probably the only way you would be found liable for injury, with or without a sign, is if you had a "hidden danger" somewhere on your property, that you know or should know about, and which you fail to either 1) repair or 2) isolate so as to keep the kids away, that cause the children injury. The classic example is a uncovered well or sinkhole that someone falls into. I'm thinking this is not your problem.
However, if you're really concerned about legal liability, post the sign. Depending on where you are, this might be enough to have the case thrown out immediately.
posted by thewittyname at 7:28 PM on December 16, 2005
Probably the only way you would be found liable for injury, with or without a sign, is if you had a "hidden danger" somewhere on your property, that you know or should know about, and which you fail to either 1) repair or 2) isolate so as to keep the kids away, that cause the children injury. The classic example is a uncovered well or sinkhole that someone falls into. I'm thinking this is not your problem.
However, if you're really concerned about legal liability, post the sign. Depending on where you are, this might be enough to have the case thrown out immediately.
posted by thewittyname at 7:28 PM on December 16, 2005
Response by poster: Canada, the land of more snow, and yes I am worried about being sued. I might be tempted to break down the fort they are building on my lawn if they have cause.
posted by phyrewerx at 7:29 PM on December 16, 2005
posted by phyrewerx at 7:29 PM on December 16, 2005
Response by poster: Also, I still remember building snow forts and having fights, it's weird asking these questions.
posted by phyrewerx at 7:30 PM on December 16, 2005
posted by phyrewerx at 7:30 PM on December 16, 2005
Maybe a seasonal "people participate in snow-related activities on this property at their own risk. Property owner will not be held responsible for any personal injury caused" sign might cover you?
posted by djgh at 7:32 PM on December 16, 2005
posted by djgh at 7:32 PM on December 16, 2005
No one can prove you even knew they were out there.
posted by smackfu at 7:38 PM on December 16, 2005
posted by smackfu at 7:38 PM on December 16, 2005
Best answer: IANAL. Be a reasonable property owner. Inspect the fort, ideally with the kids. If it's unsafe, or likely to become unsafe, explain to them that you can't permit it, and why. If it has no roof, it's probably pretty safe. If you're really worried, talk to the parents and make sure the kids know not to pack snowballs with rocks, or to ice them. I really sympathize; even if you win a court case, it costs money, time and energy. But kids should build snow forts. Bear in mind that your homeowner's insurance likely has liability coverage.
posted by theora55 at 7:45 PM on December 16, 2005
posted by theora55 at 7:45 PM on December 16, 2005
More IANAL useless speculation: I would think that unless some aspect of your property was causally involved in the injury, and that aspect of your property would be absent if the kids were forced to set up fort elsewhere (ie a local danger), you should be in the clear.
If it comes to someone threatening to sue, I'm sure the media will be quite sympathetic, and thus get citizens enraged enough to donate to your defense :)
Unless a child molestation acusation is thrown in for good measure. Then you're media toast :)
posted by -harlequin- at 8:16 PM on December 16, 2005
If it comes to someone threatening to sue, I'm sure the media will be quite sympathetic, and thus get citizens enraged enough to donate to your defense :)
Unless a child molestation acusation is thrown in for good measure. Then you're media toast :)
posted by -harlequin- at 8:16 PM on December 16, 2005
IANAL, but I've heard that putting up a sign such as suggested would imply that you know this activity is going on, and thereby accept responsibilities for it. (at least in the U.S.)
posted by matkline at 9:10 PM on December 16, 2005
posted by matkline at 9:10 PM on December 16, 2005
I might be tempted to break down the fort they are building on my lawn if they have cause.
snow on your lawn is not an attractive nuisance ... however, a snow fort could well be ... and putting up a sign saying "i am not responsible for snowball injuries" might suggest that you are actively giving permission for snowball fights on your property ... which could make you liable
are any of these kids yours? ... if not, why don't they do this on their lawns?
can they sue you? ... hell, yes, they can sue you ... they might not win ... but they can sue you
ianal ... but perhaps you should take the cranky old man approach and yell, "you kids get off my lawn!" ... well, perhaps in a more polite way ...
posted by pyramid termite at 9:17 PM on December 16, 2005
snow on your lawn is not an attractive nuisance ... however, a snow fort could well be ... and putting up a sign saying "i am not responsible for snowball injuries" might suggest that you are actively giving permission for snowball fights on your property ... which could make you liable
are any of these kids yours? ... if not, why don't they do this on their lawns?
can they sue you? ... hell, yes, they can sue you ... they might not win ... but they can sue you
ianal ... but perhaps you should take the cranky old man approach and yell, "you kids get off my lawn!" ... well, perhaps in a more polite way ...
posted by pyramid termite at 9:17 PM on December 16, 2005
What kind of "snowball" related injuries are you talking here anyway? Are they packing them with rocks or something? Unless your neighbors are so insane you have reason to think they'd sue you over their kid falling on the ice (in Canada?!?) I think you're being paranoid.
posted by fshgrl at 10:35 PM on December 16, 2005
posted by fshgrl at 10:35 PM on December 16, 2005
I think in the case of a snow fort, you could find yourself in an unpleasant situation legally, because (IMO) it would be easy to classify that as an attractive nuisance. If the fort collapses and injures someone, you could be found partially liable because 1) you knew about the fort, 2) you knew it attracted kids and 3) you didn't remove it or set up a fence to keep kids out.
As far as signage goes - if you want to post one at all - keep it simple. "No Trespassing" is all you need. If you post something more specific like "Stay Out of the Fort" you may indeed be found to accept some kind of liability, because it shows that you know the fort exists and that it is attractive.
My suggestion - if you're so worried about liability, knock the fort down and chase the kids off. This may result in a good egging, though.
posted by thewittyname at 10:36 PM on December 16, 2005
As far as signage goes - if you want to post one at all - keep it simple. "No Trespassing" is all you need. If you post something more specific like "Stay Out of the Fort" you may indeed be found to accept some kind of liability, because it shows that you know the fort exists and that it is attractive.
My suggestion - if you're so worried about liability, knock the fort down and chase the kids off. This may result in a good egging, though.
posted by thewittyname at 10:36 PM on December 16, 2005
In the US, anybody can (and does) sue anybody for anything at any time for no reason. That doesn't mean much, since bullshit lawsuits generate countersuits, or just lead nowhere.
Why worry about nonsense? Unless, of course, the kids are building a snow penis. Then call the police and have all the little vermin arrested for tresspass and indecent conduct. This also happens in the US.
I've been the target of threatened bullshit lawsuits several times. My standard answer is "Thanks for offering me the opportunity for full discovery. If your attorney is stupid enough to send me a letter, I'll be happy to get the fool disbarred for barratry." So far, it's worked every time.
Disclaimer: I give out free legal advice all the time and it's no worse than what some shysters will charge you big bucks for. I also do freelance brain surgery with kitchen implenents and have a special this week on vasectomies done with a dull spoon. It leaves no scar because I go in through an adjacent orifice.
posted by warbaby at 5:10 AM on December 17, 2005
Why worry about nonsense? Unless, of course, the kids are building a snow penis. Then call the police and have all the little vermin arrested for tresspass and indecent conduct. This also happens in the US.
I've been the target of threatened bullshit lawsuits several times. My standard answer is "Thanks for offering me the opportunity for full discovery. If your attorney is stupid enough to send me a letter, I'll be happy to get the fool disbarred for barratry." So far, it's worked every time.
Disclaimer: I give out free legal advice all the time and it's no worse than what some shysters will charge you big bucks for. I also do freelance brain surgery with kitchen implenents and have a special this week on vasectomies done with a dull spoon. It leaves no scar because I go in through an adjacent orifice.
posted by warbaby at 5:10 AM on December 17, 2005
I am a lawyer, though I am not your lawyer.
Pay no attention to tristeza. Snow as an attractive nuisance? Peh!
People have the idea that someone can sue and win if someone trips on their property. They can only sue and win in most states if:
- the claimant is there by permission or at least indulgence and
- there is some defective condition of the property that the owner knows about and has a chance to correct it
Kids on your lawn were not invited there. They are not your guests. They are trespassers. If they do this frequently and you do not object, then they are there by your implied permission.
Getting hit by a snowball thrown by another person involves no defective condition of land and thus no viable claim.
A last point: if you have homeowner's insurance, you undoubtedly have a "medical pay" provision that will pay up to a specified amount ($1,000 or $5,000 is common) for such things as out-of-pocket medical expenses for anyone hurt on your property without consideration of fault - that is, without worrying about the permission issue or the defect issue. This is good protection because it provides a quick and relatively painless way to pay such expenses and remove an irritant that might in a marginal case lead someone to visit a lawyer.
posted by yclipse at 5:46 AM on December 17, 2005
Pay no attention to tristeza. Snow as an attractive nuisance? Peh!
People have the idea that someone can sue and win if someone trips on their property. They can only sue and win in most states if:
- the claimant is there by permission or at least indulgence and
- there is some defective condition of the property that the owner knows about and has a chance to correct it
Kids on your lawn were not invited there. They are not your guests. They are trespassers. If they do this frequently and you do not object, then they are there by your implied permission.
Getting hit by a snowball thrown by another person involves no defective condition of land and thus no viable claim.
A last point: if you have homeowner's insurance, you undoubtedly have a "medical pay" provision that will pay up to a specified amount ($1,000 or $5,000 is common) for such things as out-of-pocket medical expenses for anyone hurt on your property without consideration of fault - that is, without worrying about the permission issue or the defect issue. This is good protection because it provides a quick and relatively painless way to pay such expenses and remove an irritant that might in a marginal case lead someone to visit a lawyer.
posted by yclipse at 5:46 AM on December 17, 2005
For your reference, Ontario's Trespass Law.
The part you are probably interested in (my highlighting):
Prohibition of entry
3. (1) Entry on premises may be prohibited by notice to that effect and entry is prohibited without any notice on premises,
(a) that is a garden, field or other land that is under cultivation, including a lawn, orchard, vineyard and premises on which trees have been planted and have not attained an average height of more than two metres and woodlots on land used primarily for agricultural purposes; or
(b) that is enclosed in a manner that indicates the occupier’s intention to keep persons off the premises or to keep animals on the premises. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 3 (1).
Now I guess you know why you get a free tree planted at the end of your lot in most Ontario cities (or at least a bunch of them I can recall). It not only looks nice, but keeps the city's boulevard "private property". :D
posted by shepd at 8:04 AM on December 17, 2005
The part you are probably interested in (my highlighting):
Prohibition of entry
3. (1) Entry on premises may be prohibited by notice to that effect and entry is prohibited without any notice on premises,
(a) that is a garden, field or other land that is under cultivation, including a lawn, orchard, vineyard and premises on which trees have been planted and have not attained an average height of more than two metres and woodlots on land used primarily for agricultural purposes; or
(b) that is enclosed in a manner that indicates the occupier’s intention to keep persons off the premises or to keep animals on the premises. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 3 (1).
Now I guess you know why you get a free tree planted at the end of your lot in most Ontario cities (or at least a bunch of them I can recall). It not only looks nice, but keeps the city's boulevard "private property". :D
posted by shepd at 8:04 AM on December 17, 2005
(BTW: For the general populace that doesn't know this: If you trespass on an Ontario property, you can be legally arrested by the property owner. If you struggle against the arrest, you can be charged with assault. I've seen it happen.)
(Yes, that means if you're banned from Wal-Mart already they might get away with treating you the way they did that guy in the US)
posted by shepd at 8:09 AM on December 17, 2005
(Yes, that means if you're banned from Wal-Mart already they might get away with treating you the way they did that guy in the US)
posted by shepd at 8:09 AM on December 17, 2005
Worrying about thing like this is not healthy, and I think you realize that. You don't want to be this guy.
posted by smackfu at 11:25 PM on December 17, 2005
posted by smackfu at 11:25 PM on December 17, 2005
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by tristeza at 6:42 PM on December 16, 2005