# We need NEW LAWS to protect landowners, etc.



## zzyzx (Mar 20, 2010)

If someone goes into an old farmhouse 1/2 mile from the road, falls into an old well or cistern or stept on a nail and gets tetanus... they can sue the landowner. At times they will even win but no matter what it costs a small fortune in time and money both to defend this stuff.

We need Legislators to introduce new legislation that all visitors to the land, especiallo 'open land-farming-grazing-ranching',both public and private, is an At Your Own Risk activity. Absent any direct action by the landowner or those acting for him, you assume the risk for any intrusion, legal or otherwise.

Many farmers, ranchers and landowners post their land because of liability fears. Some antique hunter comes on and is stealing stuff out of an old farmhouse, steps on a nail... and sues.

Lets start lobbying our elected representatives to introduce and pass a 'landowners protection bill' to make it easier on those who own the land. A good side benefit would be more access for hunting and similar activities since the landowners would not have the liability for general visitation any longer. Maybe a lot more old buildings would be left standing rather than torn down due to liability fears.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Not needed and a false accusation. There is already a law limiting liability for land owners if they allow free access to their land.

North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) 53-08 protects landowners and local government by limiting the liability they may incur from public recreation on their property.

A landowner either directly or indirectly inviting or permitting others to use his or her property for recreational purposes free of charge is not required to:

1. Assure that the premises are safe for any and all purposes.

2. Confirm that the recreational users are of legal and/or licensed status.

3. Assume responsibility for injury to a person or damage to any property caused by the users. Persons using the land for recreation should be prepared for all conditions, safe or unsafe.

However, if you charge for access to your land, the landowner DOES assume liability.

Landowners are liable when an injury is suffered and:

1. The user has been charged for entry onto the land other than the amount, if any, paid to the owner of the land by the state, county or city

See http://atfiles.org/files/pdf/NDliabilitybrochure.pdf for full details.


----------



## zzyzx (Mar 20, 2010)

Not all land is open for free access. Many old farmsteads are posted but people walk into them anyway. Personal knowledge of this happening and the person/trespasser stepping on old timbers and getting injured... threatened lawsuits and the result was the landowner ended up tearing the structure down to avoid having to go to court on it.

We have no real recourse against this type of thing. Yes, they are trespassers but many sheriff departments do nothing even if we complain. We are at the mercy of those who walk past the signs and use every excuse possible to say they didn't see it. We still have to pay for legal defense and few prosecuting attorneys will go after these people when found out by filing suit against the landowner.

A lot more at stake than access for sportsmen.


----------



## drjongy (Oct 13, 2003)

zzyzx said:


> We have no real recourse against this type of thing. Yes, they are trespassers but many sheriff departments do nothing even if we complain. We are at the mercy of those who walk past the signs and use every excuse possible to say they didn't see it. We still have to pay for legal defense and few prosecuting attorneys will go after these people when found out by filing suit against the landowner.


Give me a break!!! :eyeroll:


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

If it is an illegal entry the best thing is to press charges. Even if law enforcement will not do anything it helps provide documentation to the court. There are also ways to recoup you legal fees. In some cases I believe if you make a settlement offer and it is turned down if the person sueing loses they can be held liable for court costs. Most courts will have to find a negligent act on the part of the landowner before they will rule against them. Being a conservative state that is usually the case in ND.

and FWIW that is why we have insurance. In most cases it will be the landowners insurance company providing the attorneys. I believe there is also something in the law about assumed risk activities. Basically in certain activities the participant understands and accepts that there is some level of risk involved. I know Schools and Parks often use that application of the law.

The protection is there if you have a lawyer that knows how to use it..........


----------



## zzyzx (Mar 20, 2010)

Dakotashooter2, one should not have to rely on lawyers for anything. A simple law stating 'assume the risk' in all land entrance is simple. Absent traps or direct action against someone, why should anyone have a case against the landowner or lease holder? Why should one even need insurance for something like this? Much simpler, cleaner and less costly to stop it before it starts, keep insurance companies away and keep lawyers further away.

Too much time, aggravation and frustration involved no matter who defends the deal. And in Rural ND many sheriff departments don't even make a record of this kind of thing. We had crop damage to a few hundred acres, fenced knocked down and damaged one night by 4x4 joyriders and there was no report even taken. The sheriff came out, found out who it was(they left parts of their 4x4 on fenceposts and the ground) but he didn't even make a report on it. Dozens of landowners and wheat, canola, corn and other crops with big circles driven in them and lots of tire spinning.

So, the sheriff report is no solution when the guys won't even make one on a few thousand dollars in damage over 20 miles of fields hit over 6 hours or so of driving through them


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

Laws are already in place to handle these situations. If your sherriff isn't taking action you have three choices, complain to your reps, vote the sherriff out next election or take legal action. We do not need any more laws when there are already laws in place to handle these situations. If the sherriff isn't enforcing the laws already on the books, what makes you think he will enforce a new one?


----------

