Liability Issues?

[NewsMan]

Been turned down a LOT lately with people citing legal issues for not letting me on their land. I have even been told there is nothing that can be signed to protect the land owner that will hold up in court? That can't be true?? If I sign a form that keeps the landowner from liability if injured on said property... how would that not stand in court? These people seem to think even WITH such a form, a person can still turn around and sue a land owner?? Anyone wanna chime in?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[ticm]

Been turned down a LOT lately with people citing legal issues for not letting me on their land. I have even been told there is nothing that can be signed to protect the land owner that will hold up in court? That can't be true?? If I sign a form that keeps the landowner from liability if injured on said property... how would that not stand in court? These people seem to think even WITH such a form, a person can still turn around and sue a land owner?? Anyone wanna chime in?

Any body getting hurt on private property can sue. With all the money hungry lawyers around they would be more then happy to take your case. I would never let any stranger on my property to metal detect. Any legal document would have to be drawn up by a set of lawyers representing both sides.

 

[Jim in Idaho]

Any body getting hurt on private property can sue. With all the money hungry lawyers around they would be more then happy to take your case. I would never let any stranger on my property to metal detect. Any legal document would have to be drawn up by a set of lawyers representing both sides.

Yup...good post. When I was a contractor, building a fish hatchery, there was a massive earthquake (one of the biggest in the US). It caused a couple of existing pipelines to collapse against each other. The owner wanted me to remove each pipe separately, and replace, without causing the other pipe to fully fail. The only way I would do it was with a "HOLD HARMLESS" agreement from the owner. I went to an attorney to have one made out. When I left the office, the attorney said "you should know, that isn't worth the paper it's printed on". You can be taken to court under ANY circumstances,regardless of signed papers, etc. And, even if you win, the attorney's costs will be a huge number.
Jim

 

[ticm]

Yup...good post. When I was a contractor, building a fish hatchery, there was a massive earthquake (one of the biggest in the US). It caused a couple of existing pipelines to collapse against each other. The owner wanted me to remove each pipe separately, and replace, without causing the other pipe to fully fail. The only way I would do it was with a "HOLD HARMLESS" agreement from the owner. I went to an attorney to have one made out. When I left the office, the attorney said "you should know, that isn't worth the paper it's printed on". You can be taken to court under ANY circumstances,regardless of signed papers, etc. And, even if you win, the attorney's costs will be a huge number.
Jim

And there you have it.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

newsman, you've got some good answers so far. But let me tell that often-time, when you hear a land-owner or old-town demolition contractor cite such a reason for his "no", it's not really the reason for his answer. It's just the easy go-to answer to tell you "no", when .... truth be told, they just "don't want to be bothered". Because even if it WERE true that you could have some way to fully protect him (that WAS worth the paper it was written on, and could not be assailed by a lawyer if you got hurt), the truth is, that to mentally cogitate this, on the part of the person your asking, takes his time and energy to consider, read your cert's of ins, file, open and close the gate, etc... blah blah.

I own a company, and as such, have a $1,000,000 liability policy for our street sweepers. In the past, when hearing the "No" because of "liability...", I cheerfully told the persons: "No problem! I have a $1m policy through my company, and this will simply be a 'job' as I'll call it, and I'll have a cert. evidencing proof on your desk via fax in 5 minutes!" To which the person saying no STILL tells me to "scram". It is then that I begin to realize, that they simply want to say "no", as not to "be bothered". And it really doesn't matter what efforts I take to remedy their concerns. Any such "remedy" just means they'll have to wonder where you are, what you're finding, if they'll have to process paperwork, etc... Why should they be bothered? Afterall, they want to go home at 5pm and have a beer and watch TV. Not have "1 more person" they need to be thinking about.

In the same way that we close the door on door-to-door solicitors, or hang up on phone solicitors: NOT because the product isn't great, or cheaper than what we're already using or buying, right? But SIMPLY because we don't want to be bothered, and have to go through the hassles of comparing their product, with the thing we currently use and buy.

 

[jeff of pa]

newsman, you've got some good answers so far. But let me tell that often-time, when you hear a land-owner or old-town demolition contractor cite such a reason for his "no", it's not really the reason for his answer. It's just the easy go-to answer to tell you "no", when .... truth be told, they just "don't want to be bothered". Because even if it WERE true that you could have some way to fully protect him (that WAS worth the paper it was written on, and could not be assailed by a lawyer if you got hurt), the truth is, that to mentally cogitate this, on the part of the person your asking, takes his time and energy to consider, read your cert's of ins, file, open and close the gate, etc... blah blah.

Exactly, If it isn't Liability they bring up, it would be They or a Relative detects, and does it.

Some have said oh it's no use, it's been hunted hard. But they only use that one once,
because they soon realize that's a good Sign, that doesn't scare us.

I've also heard, "there is all new ground here" ?
Where is this Ground manufacturing Plant ? And how do they make new Dirt ?

& I'll wager 99 out of 99 times it means "no & I'm grabbing at straws here to get you to move on, without sounding like a jerk"

 

[Jim in Idaho]

Good post, Tom...and true. People don't owe us anything, and for most of them all we are is a pain-in-the-neck. I know, because of my shop full of expensive tools, equipment, ect., I wouldn't let anybody I didn't know have the run of the place. Thankfully, I live in Idaho, and most people are pretty good about saying yes.
Jim

 

[NewsMan]

Thanks guys. This post should help a lot of folks. I appreciate your time.

 

[pa plateau hiker]

Several years ago a new law was passed in Pa called 'Recreational use of Land and Water'. A property owner can't be held liable if someone is injured while on their land.

 

[hvacker]

The water gets muddy. My home is on a road of sorts with nine other homes. While it's referred to as a private road the land used is owned by each home owner. So as someone drives up the road, ownership and liability changes nine times. While there is a sign at the beginning of the road saying "Owners and Guests Only" there is no real way to control others from driving up if they want (except Google Earth).
So I am stuck with the liability with or without my permission.

Signing papers can mean little. In my business some owners will have employees sign a Non-compeat agreement. If the employee leaves they agree not to pirate the accounts for another company. What makes this agreement fairly useless is a company can't stop a person their right to earn a living in their field. The agreement might work as a bluff but not in court. Pirating accounts might be unethical but legal. Businesses call it "doing business".
Liability issues became a lot easier when courts assumed everyone was insured. Then a judge could see their judgements as nothing personal.

 

[TerryC]

When I started working for the Kennedy Space center in '02, one of the intructors put it very aptly when he said "This instruction you're getting here is NOT to keep you alive on the street. It is to keep THE BOSS out of jail!" Meaning, if you screw up, we will not back you. The general theme of his remarks can be applied in most scenarios today. TTC

 

[jeff of pa]

When I started working for the Kennedy Space center in '02, one of the intructors put it very aptly when he said "This instruction you're getting here is NOT to keep you alive on the street. It is to keep THE BOSS out of jail!" Meaning, if you screw up, we will not back you. The general theme of his remarks can be applied in most scenarios today. TTC

Which is why I would never take "Orders" from anyone not handing me a suitcase full of cash at the same time
& even then I may just humor them till I can get on the nearest bus