Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Jim 0216
The purpose of the sign is to WARN the trespasser of a dangerous condition on the property.

And if they didn't trespass in the first place? (not a rhetorical question either)

Does a rotten board on a porch, which could cause injury from someone falling through, predicate the need for a sign?

The owner knows it's there and avoids stepping on it until it's repaired. He warns guests to his property.

Should he also warn the thief coming to rob him unawares?

38 posted on 10/02/2016 11:25:00 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamiin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]


To: philman_36

These are good questions

1) In tort law (civil, not criminal law),

- If the trespasser is expected, then the land owner has a duty to warn of ARTIFICIAL dangers, but not natural dangers on the land. In this case the trespasser might be considered known or anticipated and the step probably an artificial danger. So in your hypo, he may very well need to warn the trespasser of the step.

- However, if the trespasser is not known or anticipated, the land owner has no duty to him except to void willful infliction of harm.

2) In criminal law, dangerous or deadly devices are per se illegal. Most likely the electrified sign would need a warning sign. However, in your hypo, since the broken step is probably not there purposely to defend the property, the step most likely is not illegal.

If the person is not a trespasser, then different rules apply which are not relevant to the electrified sign-situation at hand


40 posted on 10/02/2016 12:11:51 PM PDT by Jim W N
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson