05-13-2019, 07:18 PM
Isn't it logical that trespassing is more egregious when it is done on properties where people live, structures exist or have agriculture pursuits such as crops? And commonly there are fences and signs to protect the aforesaid.
And far less egregious when a property is devoid of all of the above and all is surrounded by numerous other properties that are also also devoid of the same? A large expanse of land in a natural state. What are you protecting from trespassing hikers here? Someone stealing a rock or some dirt?
- - - -
From another poster:
Q: Do you know how many lawsuits of all kinds are ongoing as we discuss this?
A: A lot
A lot? All I've heard this far is hearsay that lawsuits are commonly filed in Hawaii for injuries on vacant land, absent an attractive nuisance. In Hawaii the attractive nuisance (natural feature) that makes property owners most susceptible to litigation is ponds and streams. Hawaii has serious flash flood problems.
An example would be Anna's pond in Waimea. An attractive nuisance that has been the site of several rescues. Owner faces some liability risk.
A barren lava field? The ocean shoreline (which is dangerous everywhere)? Forest with cliffs and ravines (and no ponds)? Injury on those natural features will be highly unlikely to draw interest of litigation attorneys or the sympathy of a judge. As slanted as our system is to lawyers, Hawaii's judges aren't complete idiots.
If someone has contrary data, please provide it.
And far less egregious when a property is devoid of all of the above and all is surrounded by numerous other properties that are also also devoid of the same? A large expanse of land in a natural state. What are you protecting from trespassing hikers here? Someone stealing a rock or some dirt?
- - - -
From another poster:
Q: Do you know how many lawsuits of all kinds are ongoing as we discuss this?
A: A lot
A lot? All I've heard this far is hearsay that lawsuits are commonly filed in Hawaii for injuries on vacant land, absent an attractive nuisance. In Hawaii the attractive nuisance (natural feature) that makes property owners most susceptible to litigation is ponds and streams. Hawaii has serious flash flood problems.
An example would be Anna's pond in Waimea. An attractive nuisance that has been the site of several rescues. Owner faces some liability risk.
A barren lava field? The ocean shoreline (which is dangerous everywhere)? Forest with cliffs and ravines (and no ponds)? Injury on those natural features will be highly unlikely to draw interest of litigation attorneys or the sympathy of a judge. As slanted as our system is to lawyers, Hawaii's judges aren't complete idiots.
If someone has contrary data, please provide it.