Posted on 12/03/2023 2:50:28 PM PST by Twotone
Yes.
This town is where my hate for academia was born.
Oregon Coast Community College.
The english dept is a tribute to Marx.
Took my 4.0 and turned it into a 3.95 cuz I stood up for Clarence Thomas verses anita hill in an assigned essay.
That pit deserves every consequence it gets.
Spit.
.
AND of course some jackass lawyer will sue for un improved trails.
I once slipped on an embarrassingly small wet stick on a trail. I thought it was just a sprain but it turned out to be a partial year of my Achilles tendon.
I sued and won $5,000,000.
Oh wait. I wrapped it up and a few weeks later went to the doctor and got treated. At my expense for my mistake.
Frankly, in Mexico there’s more freedom. There you do everything at your own risk.
How do we know that that woman wasn’t watching where she was going? Maybe she was talking on the phone or yelling at her dog.
Several years ago, a local snowmobile club where I lived had permission to transit across a pretty wide range of fields due to the generosity of a large farming operation. That was good until someone went off the trail by about 400-500 feet and clipped a piece of farm equipment that was parked in a staging area with other equipment. The snowmobiler, even though he clearly departed the trail, won a mid 6-figure sum for injuries.
The farm’s insurance paid but the ins company said no more recreational use. So due to one idiot, the local club lost access to over 4,000 acres of land for possible use, and lost direct access to a couple of major routes used by several clubs. The managing partner was pretty sad but said it had to be done unless they wanted to self insure.
All it takes is 1 greedy a-hole and 1 greedy a-hole lawyer to destroy any common sense anymore these days. People are too damn scared to tell an idiot that they are an idiot and to sit down and shut up. Pathetic.
From your first link: Landowners who grant public access to their land for recreational use are immune from liability for injury that “arises out of the use of the land for recreational purposes.” ORS 105.682(1). “The activity of crossing a parcel of land, by itself, is not a recreational purpose.” Liberty v. State Dept. of Transportation, 342 Or 11, 21-22 (2006).
If your intent is to get to someplace where you can “recreate” then getting there should be part of your recreation. The above is just absurd.
Yep. We have a couple of people we let hunt our property and we have to have them sign a waver promising not to sue us should they fall out of a tree or something. I hate to do it because these guys are friends of ours but they bring their buddies along and we do not know them.
They should just put up a sign “for recreational use only.”
Re: 29 - I have an umbrella policy for our land and don’t have the two hunters who use it sign a waiver, but I also make it clear - no guests. Period. Ever.
One year I found two nice deer stands setup in an area where my hunters don’t hunt. Took them down and gave them to one of my regulars. Later found out it was a couple local guys who set them up and were regularly trespassing on posted land in the area. Thankfully one moved away a few years ago.
If a single life is saved . . .
Dissolve the Courts, Kill all the Lawyers...
We used to let people hunt on our land and stopped it all together. There’s a portion of hunters that shoot up and vandalize. From about the second experience that was it.
The Ideology of “the Cathedral” spreads from the elite universities, to the other universities, to the prestige newspapers and media, and then to the elites running institutions, and finally becomes a propaganda topic for the entire population.
So what started as a fringe belief on College campuses, eventually spreads to College Towns, and finally spreads everywhere.
An unmaintained wooden bridge around here can get slicker than snot.
Yes, boatramps in Florida always are, and sidewalks are icy in Minnesota this time of year.
Like I said, walk more carefully, it’s not the city/state/county government’s job to keep us all upright.
The crux of the case: “The Oregon Court of Appeals decided there is a factual dispute as to whether Fields was using the trail while recreating or simply to access the beach and that a trial court and jury would need to make that determination. Newport asked the Oregon Supreme Court to review and reverse the the appeals court decision.”
The judges on the Oregon Court of Appeals are non-thinking idiots. The “recreation” aspect is not in what the person was doing, but in the purpose of the bridge or trail, which is for ACCESS TO RECREATION. Even a walk on the beach is “recreation” whether or not “getting recreation” is the intent of the person walking on the beach.
Just do like Hawaii does, mark everything as “no trespassing”. We also put up fences as most in my rural Hawaii have animals.
We don’t enforce that except when you screw up.
Locals know the limits and the gate combinations.
Years ago a older woman at our church tripped on a crack on the city sidewalk (tree root upheaval) and had a pretty severe broken leg. Somebody said that she should sue.
“Sue? Why would I sue myself for not watching where I was walking!?” (This was back in the day when insurance still took care of most things without huge deductibles.)
Speaking of which - another reason why car and business insurance costs so much. My agent was saying that in the previous 20 years the highest payout he ever saw was something like $500,000 (for a death). In the last five years he said now he sees people get an injured knee (they can still walk) get settlements of $1 million.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.