Posts: 4,264
Threads: 96
Joined: Mar 2014
the people who own the land STILL HAVE LIABILITY... no matter how desolate the land is....same as an "abandoned" home... if ANYONE, gets hurt on their land, they probably will have liability issues..
-----------
While that is technically true, in reality, no one will get sued and there is quite the possibility that a judge would through it out. Has ANYONE ever got sued because of an injury in Royal Gardens?
Posts: 8,470
Threads: 1,033
Joined: May 2003
Probably nearly impossible to establish, as a fact, precisely where someone might have been injured. That, combined with the general prohibition on traversing the lava, would make a liability case nearly impossible.
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
Posts: 6,214
Threads: 354
Joined: Feb 2006
There is a vast difference between successful suit & being sued...
Unfortunately, landowners are sued for injuries, even from trespassers, esp. to children from "attractive nuisances" on their property... while most are not successful (the big exception is when children are injured) a suit can still be filed & go through the courts...
"The attractive nuisance doctrine applies to the law of torts, in the United States. It states that a landowner may be held liable for injuries to children trespassing on the land if the injury is caused by an object on the land that is likely to attract children."
Posts: 1,066
Threads: 26
Joined: Dec 2010
I agree with Rob, can’t see any court holding land owners liable for anyone getting hurt trying to hike Earth’s newest attraction any more than holding them liable for 700 homes burning down because of “their” Fissure.
“a landowner may be held liable for injuries to children trespassing”
Why aren’t the parents held accountable?
Are Leilani residents mostly against any thought of buying them out and making the area part of an expanded HVNP? I understand many would be against it, but if it were to happen it could be very good for Pahoa and the local economy in the long run.
Posts: 1,087
Threads: 10
Joined: Aug 2016
"There is a vast difference between successful suit & being sued..."
Maybe not such a vast difference. Defending yourself against such a suit can be very, very costly even if you are successful. It's a very common misconception that if you win a case like this you get your legal fees covered. Not in this state. If you had insurance then the insurance company might fight it for you or pay the damages, but how many of those property owners are still carrying insurance?
Also, keep in mind that granting permission would give such a suit a lot more teeth, even with a liability waiver.
I find it "interesting" that some years back, at least a couple of posters in this thread were advocating parking outside the gate of Kapoho Beach Lots and walking on the private roads of the gated community. The neighborhood leadership forbid such behavior because it was plain and simple trespassing. I even called the president and she confirmed that it was trespassing. Now these posters are vigorously advocating that hiking to Fissure 8 would be trespassing. I agree that Fissure 8 should be off limits but find the hypocrisy quite amusing.
Posts: 1,120
Threads: 57
Joined: Mar 2013
"The attractive nuisance doctrine applies to the law of torts, in the United States. It states that a landowner may be held liable for injuries to children trespassing on the land if the injury is caused by an object on the land that is likely to attract children."
- - - -
"attractive nuisance"
This term applies mostly applies to man-made things like swimming pools, trampolines, treehouses and the like. The former are consistently dangerous to children, drowning risk. It can also apply to lakes; there's hundreds across the American Northeast. Law is mixed from state to state on whether lakes need to be fenced off.
Lava fields are not particularly attractive to anyone. They draw a specific group, hikers, who, it is generally understood, are at risk from falling on uneven terrain.
There are major trip and fall hazards in virtually every park or natural area in Hawaii. Cliffs all over the place. People are misapplying the attractive nuisance concept.
Posts: 26
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2016
"Attractive nuisance" can typically be proven by the fact that people wanted to be there. Absolutely not fair, but there is always a lawyer somewhere that'll go for it for a large cut of the action.
Concerning liability waivers, you usually cannot waive your health insurance provider's right to recoup their expenses.
Tod
Tod
Posts: 26
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2016
quote:
I even called the president and she confirmed that it was trespassing.
That was probably my Mom.[
]
Tod
Tod
Posts: 1,100
Threads: 6
Joined: Nov 2010
Pretty sure there are a quite a few who would object. Leilani has a neighborhood watch person on duty looking out for people trying to park there. If you know anyone from that area then you're probably aware they're all just trying to get back to normal and don't appreciate intruders.
No doubt they would object to you being in Leilani at all, even if you're sticking to the county road and they had no legal basis to do so. My point was that if you're already down there at the fissure on Leilani, it's likely no one would further object to you going down Makamae.
