Exercising Land Rights vs Snowmobiling Accident

[JohnMiller3]

12/30/2002 5:59 AM
By: Capital News 9 web staff

One teen is killed and another injured after a late night snowmobiling accident in Rensselaer County.

Authorities say the accident happened near Lindeman Rd in the Town of West Sand Lake around 10 PM last night.

Two teens, who's names are not being released were involved in the crash. A 17- year-old male was killed, and a 15 year old girl suffered injuries, no word this morning on how serious her injuries are.

Police say the two ran into a cable that was strung across the trail.

~~~from the web~~~

What do you think? [img]/forums/images/icons/frown.gif[/img]

[RichZ]

John, I think that cable trick is pretty sick. If I wanted to keep snowmobilers off a trail on my property, I'd put up a VISIBLE fence or barricade. I may not like trespassers, but I sure wouldn't try to kill them!!

[Gary_in_Indiana]

Rich,

I think you might be assuming a lot here. I didn't get from the article that the cable was there with the express intent of harming anyone. What I did get was that it was 10 PM, which probably means it was pretty dark out there. As far as what we know from the article, it could have been on the snowmobilers' property or public land.

While I certainly sympathize with the families here, I'd just hate to think this tragedy was the result of an intentional act. I just don't want to be quite so quick to indict without knowing a lot more about this. [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

[RichZ]

You may be right Gary, as I haven't seen the article. I was just assuming based on John's post. And you know what happens when you assume.[img]/forums/images/icons/blush.gif[/img]

[Gatorboy]

I have two posts with a cable across my stream crossing to the main portion of my property. It has a sign hanging on it that should be visible during the day, or at night with headlights shining on it.

This is to prevent people from just driving up onto my land and vandalizing my equipment -- it is not intended to hurt anyone.

[RichZ]

Dave, I think your cable is very visible, but as I said before, I guess I got the wrong idea from John's original post.

Sorry!![img]/forums/images/icons/blush.gif[/img]

[earthmother]

I would think the land owner is libel for the death of those kids. Even if the cable was not intentionally placed to hurt anyone, the court may see it that a "prudent person" could assume that a cable across a right of way or trail, can be injurious. Just like if someone falls on your property. You may not have known that there was a crack in the walkway (or whatever) and you didn't mean to injure someone, but it happened. You are libel. That's why we have homeowner's insurance. Although that landowner may not have put that cable up to actually hurt someone, by putting it up, there is always that potential, especially because the landowner would have had to place the cable low in order for the snowmobiles to run into it, and did not make it visible. [img]/forums/images/icons/frown.gif[/img]

[AndyF]

Assuming they were on private land, what about the responsibility of the snowmobilers to obtain permission to use the trail and familiarize themselves with potential hazards? Absent a lot of information here, we seem to be giving the snowmobilers a complete pass on their responsibility to exercise appropriate care before engaging in their sport. It is truly unfortunate that people were killed, but given the way too many people use their snowmobiles it is a miracle that more people aren't killed every year.

[Ranchman]

<font color="blue"> I would think the land owner is libel for the death of those kids. </font color>

Too many unknowns here to make that call. I know nothing about the incident other than what I've read here, and as yet I've seen no details that would lead me to one conclusion or another in regards to liability.

Were they trespassing or were they "invited guests"? (I haven't seen it explicitly stated either way - heck, we don't even know for sure if it was private property based on the posts above.)

How well was the cable marked (it could have been painted camouflage and had razor blades attached, or had 20 ribbons/signs/strobe lights for all we know.)

Who was the cable-stringer? It could have been a family member and the kids were riding around on "Uncle Bob's" place. Maybe it was some crazed idiot who hated those kids.

And what was the intent of the cable-stringer? Intent plays a big part - e.g. was he "out for blood" or simply trying to block a pathway that had other dangers (stumps/dropoffs/etc.) on it - trying to PROTECT people from getting hurt?

How can anyone make a determination either way without ANY details???

That's why both sides are allowed to present their case before judgement is passed in court after all. Facts come before "feelings" and knee-jerk reactions regarding liability is something far to prevalent in the U.S. in my book.

<font color="blue">you didn't mean to injure someone, but it happened. You are libel. </font color>

Er, uh - maybe in NY, but not here in Texas. Here, according to Texas Penal Code,

<font color="green"> § 75.002. Liability Limited,

(a) An owner, lessee, or occupant of agricultural land:
(1) does not owe a duty of care to a trespasser on the land; and
(2) is not liable for any injury to a trespasser on the land, except for wilful or wanton acts or gross negligence by the owner, lessee, or other occupant of agricultural land. </font color>

Subsection B of that same part of the code goes on to say:
<font color="green">
(b) If an owner, lessee, or occupant of agricultural land gives permission to another or invites another to enter the premises for recreation, the owner, lessee, or occupant, by giving the permission, does not:
(1) assure that the premises are safe for that purpose;
(2) owe to the person to whom permission is granted or to whom the invitation is extended a greater degree of care than is owed to a trespasser on the premises; or
(3) assume responsibility or incur liability for any injury to any individual or property caused by any act of the person to whom permission is granted or to whom the invitation is extended. </font color>

Subsection C says basically all the same stuff for non-Ag property (e.g. real property)

If we want to speak hypothetically about if someone who maliciously intends to hurt others should/should not be liable, that's a different kettle of fish. But that's not what is going on here. We're talking about real people, the dead (15/17 yr olds) and the living (cable-stringer). I think it's inappropriate and in poor taste to judge on if this person(s) should/should not be held liable (either financially or criminally) at this point since we know virtually nothing other than 2 teens are dead.

<font color="blue"> That's why we have homeowner's insurance. </font color> <font color="black"> </font color>

I (and the insurance companies, I'd guess) disagree. Money and lawsuits are not the answer for everything. You say "...there is always that potential..." and therefore imply stringing a cable gate shouldn't ever be done.

If everyone took that attitude and never did anything that involved risk, we'd be living in the stone age. No transportation (air/sea/land wrecks lead to death), no food (agriculture is the highest risk profession in the US - yes, above being a police officer), no energy (coal mining, anyone???), etc.

Basically Life=Risk, and not all risks are necessary for life (e.g. nobody NEEDS to sky-dive, nobody NEEDS to scuba-dive, nobody NEEDS snow-ski, etc.) Those "risky" activities, while not necessarily increasing lifespan, in the eyes of the person partaking, may improve their quality of life.

I'm rambling on, but even with my "strong" feelings regarding trespassers that I've posted on TBN, my point is that based on the information above, nobody (including me) really knows enough about this case to speak intelligently about what kind of liability (or lack thereof) is appropriate. <font color="black"> </font color>

Well put Ranchman. I sure do like reading your posts. [img]/forums/images/icons/wink.gif[/img] I'm afraid there's way too much liberalism for either one of us anymore.