Reps. Morrison and MacMillan have introduced HB 1502 which would limit potential liability to trespassers. Landowners would have a duty of care not to wantonly or wilfully injure trespassers once they were discovered. Before they are discovered, landowners would not have even that duty. As I read it, landowners wouldn’t be liable to trespassers who fell into, say, a pit of acid you maintained on your property to kill trespassers. (Unless that’s a zoning violation – if the structure or condition violaes a zoning law and it hurts a trespasser, you might be liable.)
There are also exceptions made for injuries to trespassing children by attractive nuisances on the property.
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
Attractive nuisances? Man, that witch would be so screwed.
Stupid Hansel and Gretel…
Next up, a bill being proposed by Vlad the Impaler.
Why is the General Assembly screwing around with this area of the law? Case law can be vague and ambiguous. For that matter, statutes can be vague and ambiguous. Each relies upon words. This area of the law has been fairly stable for a long time—as in since before my first year of law school, or since Indiana case law used parallel cites (xxx Ind.App. xxx, xxx N.E. 2d xxx). Is the General Assembly’s next move to allow “trap guns”? The GA should go back to defining the numerical equivalent for Pi.
Welcome to the 18th Century English Countryside. Replete with deadfalls, man traps and spring guns.
i thought the legislative focus was supposed to be on jobs, the economy
and the budget?
ultimately, at least in the house, the agenda is up to Bosma.