top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]skyhamster 385 points386 points ago

Same in Scotland. It is known as the "Right to Roam".

[–]andytb 249 points250 points ago

The code can pretty much be summed as 'don't be a dick' - don't camp in someone's garden, don't trample their crops, don't disturb their livestock or put it as risk by leaving gates open. Take your litter away and do your business away from water sources.

[–]bug_eyed_earl 164 points165 points ago

Don't fuck up million year old rock formations.

[–]badtwinboy 46 points47 points ago

So basically no American hicks...

[–]Hatguy115 49 points50 points ago

No people from the city thinking the country is a trash can.

[–]rbrawney 4 points5 points ago

Yes, Americans are the only ones who do this. Fuck Americans. wank wank wank

[–]MrRandomSuperhero 9 points10 points ago

I love this law because it shows that some people can still trust others to act like proper adults.

It's a nice and rarifying thing.

[–]checksumfail 42 points43 points ago

And you can camp anywhere that won't clearly piss someone off!

Great law to have in such a beautiful country.

[–]AlrightWallOfChina 8 points9 points ago

Finland also has the Allemansrätt, or "Jokamiehenoikeus".

[–]riskybizzle 77 points78 points ago

Came here for this. Scottish Outdoor Access Code. The way it should be IMO.

[–]Khnagar 22 points23 points ago

The same in Norway.

[–]MassiveClusterFuck 16 points17 points ago

Possibly one of the best laws we have, being able to just go for a walk nearly anywhere you want gives you such a great feeling of freedom

[–]SocraticDiscourse 10 points11 points ago

I thought it was a British law that also applied in England, rather than just a Scottish one?

[–]lumpytuna 29 points30 points ago

Nope. The only thing that England has that is comparable is a huge network of public pathways.

[–]Uptkang 26 points27 points ago

England and Wales do have a Right to Roam, it's juts more limited than the Scots one.

[–]JB_UK 15 points16 points ago

England and Wales have the Countryside Right of Way- basically, the right to roam is limited to 'Access Land', which has to be specially designated. You can see the maps here (as long as you don't mind the unutterably shit interface):

In many parts, these are scraps of land here and there, elsewhere huge swathes are covered, particularly in low-population areas, for instance Northern and Central Wales, and Northern England.

There's also a really excellent footpath system (these are usually public rights of way that go across private land). For instance, here's somewhere near me, the red, blue and green dashed lines are public footpaths.

Edit: Oh, also, trespass in the UK is not traditionally a criminal offense. The law was amended a decade or two back, but I think only to include aggravated trespass, for instance if you're holding a rave party, or vandalizing the property.

[–]InscrutableTed 7 points8 points ago

Doesn't England have the Country Code, which allows you to cross farms as long as you follow certain rules?


[–]JB_UK 5 points6 points ago

I don't think that has legal force, they're just public guidelines.

[–]gogoplata91 17 points18 points ago

Commies! I'mactuallyquitejealous

[–]Reads_Small_Text_Bot 12 points13 points ago

actually quite jealous

[–]MashuVariety 12 points13 points ago

I knew it.

[–]micge 247 points248 points ago

Similar law aplies in Finland too called "jokamiehenoikeus" or "every mans right". You can hunt small game, pick berries/mushrooms, hike or camp anywhere, with only some of these rights limited in national parks, unesco nature heritage areas and all of them revoked within eyesight of dwellings.

EDIT: There's no point in me repeating here, what is available on the internet. Take heart, your Average Joe wont march on your land and start shooting at animals. The right to hunt wild game is dependant on having the permits/licences.

[–]White_pants 104 points105 points ago

‘Allemansrätt’ means "every mans right" in swedish and has pretty much the same rules.

[–]ccookkee 128 points129 points ago

In Norway we have the same thing but call it 'allemannsretten', because that's how you spell properly. Take that, swede!

[–][deleted] ago


    [–]guy_from_sweden 185 points186 points ago

    This so many times over.

    Let's put it like this -

    Amount of Gustavus Adolphus the Greats leading your country at some point in history:

    Norway - 0

    Sweden - 1

    The only reason you norwegians has become cocky the last century or so is because of your petty 'oil'. Well, too bad oil evidently can not buy you butter!

    [–]ccookkee 73 points74 points ago

    Oh, I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of how much money we are making.

    [–]disembowelment 117 points118 points ago

    That's alright, I've seen your beer prices. Too bad you can't get a buzz from oil, huh?

    [–]Schmoopykins 36 points37 points ago

    Oil? No. Öl? Yes.

    [–]planeturban 5 points6 points ago

    Where are zhe Germans when you need them?

    [–]1norcal415 65 points66 points ago

    As an American, this thread has been hilariously entertaining. Thank you.

    [–]nexustab 22 points23 points ago

    As a non-American, be careful Norway they know about your oil now.

    [–]JonathanRL 7 points8 points ago

    If you are making all that money, why the fuck are you buying your food so cheaply in Sweden?

    [–]White_pants 28 points29 points ago

    Ha! Stop singing and then you will be able to pronounce stuff correctly, but let denmark keep the potato in their mouth.

    (And we will stay drunk!)

    [–]aarghIforget 29 points30 points ago

    I love it when you guys fight.

    [–]DefinitelyNotANinja 3 points4 points ago

    No Finns around yet? K I'll cover.

    "You guys better shut up or you'll wake Simo Häyhä again, then you'll be sorry."

    [–]White_pants 14 points15 points ago

    My father once told me a story about a finn and a swede.

    ''So its a wonderful spring day and a finn and swede go out into the forest to drink. After finding a stump, they sit down with their backs to each other and start drinking. After 45min the swede turns around and says 'skål', the finn answers 'did we come here to drink or did we come here to talk?'

    [–]rheus 2 points3 points ago

    I don't sing! I'm from the west, and I speak proper Norwegian!

    Not that swedish-danish hybrid they speak in the south east.

    [–]octahexx 7 points8 points ago

    dont make us come over there and "unify" us again under the swedish flag!

    [–]AlexanderGson 5 points6 points ago

    You know that cool song from kollektivet. Åäö, or maybe it was Äöå. Använd de bokstäverna då! :)

    [–]space_donut 3 points4 points ago

    Shots fired!

    [–]SwedishPrince 3 points4 points ago

    Too bad your written language is only 100 years old

    [–]AmericaLLC 26 points27 points ago

    Yep, I understand the law to be almost identical in all Fennoscandian nations. The concept is actually pretty radical for, say, Americans. As long as you're not within a certain distance (I think it's something like 200 meters) of a building in use, there's no such thing as trespassing ! There are probably exceptions to this rule, but nonetheless, the law gives the average citizen an incredible freedom to travel and utilize renewable natural resources!

    [–]cccrazydog 17 points18 points ago

    Upvote for Fennoscandia.

    [–]the_ovster 7 points8 points ago

    200 meters? I think it's closer to 15-50meters but there is no exact measurement to go by, it depends on how close a dwelling is to a communal road, how much 'insyn' it is from the public and so forth. But our laws regarding private property is very different from in America where you own property and do with it what you will everybody else can just fuck off, our laws are more of a 'floating' kind where your and other people's rights are dependent on the situation and mostly based on need. If necessity like survival is a stake your property means nothing.

    [–]themagnificentsphynx 6 points7 points ago

    So there are no designated hunting areas? So a person might be hunting where I'm walking? D:

    [–]FinnishHippo 14 points15 points ago

    If you are in Finland and walk in a forest during hunting season, wear something red (ie. hat or a jacket) and you'll be fine.

    [–]Mugros 29 points30 points ago

    Like this?

    [–]FinnishHippo 2 points3 points ago

    But what do you say while wearing that?

    [–]MithrandirTheIstari 2 points3 points ago


    [–]annoying_whistler 9 points10 points ago

    Well there are hunting seasons: different times for different game. Shooting will not happen near dwellings as it is prohibited by law. Granted shooting accidents will still happen and you can find them from your newspaper every once in a while. There are actually safety vests (a lot like reflective vests) you can wear if youre truely worried about getting shot during hunting season.

    [–]glazjoon 6 points7 points ago

    In Sweden the hunting rights are given to the owner of the land. Meaning you can lease the land from the owner.

    [–]I_CATS 6 points7 points ago

    Yes. Try your best to not look like a moose.

    [–]mac 54 points55 points ago

    If anyone is interested this doc(pdf in English) gives helpful guidance on how Allemansrätten works in practice.

    [–]Poposhka 449 points450 points ago

    It's actually one of the harder things I had to acclimatize to when moving to the United States - how protective people are of "their land".

    Of course Allemansrätten doesn't mean you stroll through people's back yards, walk into wheat fields, etc.

    [–]Solna 32 points33 points ago

    It is interesting to note that this is not written in law, but follows from ancient custom; the constitution briefly states all are allowed to roam freely in accordance to the allemansrätt, but it has not been found necessary to explain what it means.

    It follows from unwritten custom (which is sometimes a source of law) that you are not allowed to hurt the economic interests of the owner, infringe on the private sphere, or damage nature.

    [–]atetuna 11 points12 points ago

    You are correct. Of course you mean the Swedish constitution, not the constitution of the USA, since you said it's in accordance with "allemansrätt".

    Instrument of Government
    -Chapter 2
    --Article 18

    There shall be access for all to the natural environment in accordance with the right of public ac-cess, notwithstanding the above provisions.

    Also this.

    [–]bushwhack227 37 points38 points ago

    using the phrase "ancient custom" was also a dead giveaway he wasn't talking about the US.

    [–]Berkbelts 49 points50 points ago

    Ha my Swedish friends got the police called on them for trespassing because they were skateboarding in a church's parking lot at night. The cops let them go with a warning but it was funny to talk to them afterwards. The Swedes didn't understand why it happened. All us Americans were like "Duh, you were trespassing."

    [–]Chokkiss 2 points3 points ago

    I really doubt it actually was trespassing, more like someone was scared they'd damage something or doing other illegal activities. Unless they were actually climbing high fences with locked gates, they weren't trespassing. The fact that the police then told them to leave the area is just what happens here. The police doesn't really have that kind of authority without reasons or provocation. But us Swedes have a tendency to do what we're told by cops.

    [–]Xo0om 22 points23 points ago

    If it was only people's property I wouldn't mind so much. But we saw with the government shutdown that we couldn't even walk in the park if it was federal land. That is just absurd.

    [–]scobes 167 points168 points ago

    It amuses me how many Americans define freedom as the freedom to deny stuff to others.

    Edit: Wow, you guys sure are sensitive.

    [–][deleted] 4 points5 points ago

    Hey now. England started basic property law in the 15-16th centuries. We're just following them...

    [–]zwirlo 3 points4 points ago

    This is from one of my recent comment explaining this.

    Our constitution is a negative powers constitution, which sounds bad, but means that you have the right to do anything not specifically mentioned as illegal. Constitutions in European may have more defined rights, but those are defined and you have no more, and the bill of rights is more of a way to say what we can't make illegal than to define our "privledge".

    TL;DR We can do anything but what they say we can't do.

    [–]curt_schilli 18 points19 points ago

    Or the freedom to protect what's yours...

    [–]veiron 9 points10 points ago

    "protect" ...Damaging stuff is still illegal in sweden you know.

    [–]mexicodoug 73 points74 points ago

    As a mountain biker and hiker, that's for sure!

    Landowners of ranches in the US freak out when you use a dirt road or pathway to get to a nice lake or mountain top if it's on the land they "own."

    The landowners in most lands outside the US figure that they own the land for what it produces, like crops or whatever, and as long as you're not messing up what the land produces you're welcome to pass through.

    Like, you can ride your bike through, or make love under a secluded tree, but you can't hunt the deer.

    Americans are all weird about how their property is "sacred" and your very presence on their property is some kind of violation of their religion.

    [–]atetuna 15 points16 points ago

    I can understand if they had their land properly posted and had a gate across their road, but it's ridiculous when they get irate when there's little way to know that road is private.

    [–]AU36832 33 points34 points ago

    If you knew how many lawsuits a landowner in the US can get slapped with if someone gets hurt on their land then you wouldn't be so hard on them. Also Farmers and ranchers break their backs to make a living off of land that they payed for and continue to pay taxes on till the day they die. 99% of the time landowners care about their land far more than anyone just wanting to explore could understand.

    Oh yeah. A lot of farmers also hunt so it is really not a good idea to just let people wander around without asking permission.

    [–]reid8470 13 points14 points ago

    As you said, a huge chunk of it is the potential for legal issues. Was helping my uncle build a farm one summer and I saw some kids climbing a dead tree up the hill a few hundred feet (rural area). My uncle somewhat panics and yells at them to get out of it and get off his property, then says to me "If one of those branches broke and a kid fell with it, their parents would sue the hell out of me."

    [–]preteensextoy 33 points34 points ago

    Your legal system must be completely fucked up then. The possibility to sue somebody for this (or the chance of actually winning the case) defies common sense.

    [–]greywindow 2 points3 points ago

    Most farmers are cool as shit too. I've never had a farmer deny me access to there land to hunt or ride through.

    [–]Grandiose_Claims 8 points9 points ago

    Yeah, they are paranoid about it because:

    1. Illegal activity allowed on their land can often end up being their responsibility, so if some dumbass decides to grow pot / seduce a minor / smoke weed / assault someone at a field part on a farmer's land, guess who can be found both criminally and civilly liable? The property owner. It can and does happen, despite how stupid the law is regarding these matters.

    2. People can and often are inconsiderate of people's land, leaving trash, starting fires by accident, etc.

    3. Strangers aren't always friendly. Every now and then, one of them ends up being someone who's out to assault / rob you, and while that's rare, people shouldn't have to be constantly guessing when some vagrant is passing through and squatting on their land.

    On a side note, it's part of the culture in America. We are one of the most individualistic and private nations in the world, and many of us don't have a problem with that. Want to hike/camp/bike? There is an incredible wealth of parks, reserves, etc for that in every state, most counties and towns.

    [–]Ihmhi3 5 points6 points ago


    And there's plenty of people who have large chunks of land that wouldn't mind your passing through or even camping there - just so long as you ask.

    There's some real asshole ATV and dirtbike enthusiasts that completely tear up private land. There's been a few incidents where they've been warned to stay off the land and the owner ended up shooting at them because they didn't.

    [–]MasterRoshii 18 points19 points ago

    Where do you like living better, U.S.A.or Sweden?

    [–]Boner4SCP106 208 points209 points ago

    Sweden of course. He's a Redditor after all.

    [–]sukritact 33 points34 points ago

    Låt oss alla flytta till Sverige.

    [–]Sm0kinyoface 20 points21 points ago

    Nej, snälla stanna där ni är...

    [–]sukritact 4 points5 points ago

    Det är för sent; invasionen har börjat. Sverige kommer att bli Konungariket Reddit!

    [–]Aitch86 11 points12 points ago

    Yes, I would like to hear your thoughts on your state(which is?). I know a man who moved here from Sweden and just couldn't talk enough about it. It made me want to go there really bad and explore.

    [–]White_pants 48 points49 points ago

    My parents moved from Sweden to the US in 1990, i was born in 1991.

    My parents love the US, they became naturalized citizens in 2002 when sweden allowed duel citizenship (I was born with it). In my eyes they have become Americans. My brother and I live in Sweden (I study, he works) after having lived in the States for 17 and 13 years (respectivly). Most Swedes if you ask them in the street will say they love the USA, maybe not the politics, but the whole USA way of life. Many of the things you have beeen accustomed to dont exist in the same way. Shops close at 6 and earlyer on week ends, people are not as open as they are in the US, and there is pressure to make you think that you are not anything more then normal. These just name a few of the things that I see as differences between the USA an Sweden.

    (sorry i am drunk, yay uni life)

    [–]JibesWith 13 points14 points ago

    I would say swedes value humility over confidence and find any kind of swagger distasteful, but that's just using nicer words. You have huge freedom to be a loner, so it's not super-conformist in all ways.

    [–]MasterRoshii 16 points17 points ago

    You and I have been redditing for the same amount of days /r/mildlyinteresting

    [–]X019 15 points16 points ago

    Your account is older by 9 hours 44 minutes.

    [–]Ricekrisper 19 points20 points ago

    and suddenly, /r/notinteresting

    [–]CAT_WILL_MEOW 1 point2 points ago

    I think he is neutral on which he likes more

    [–]AliveInTheFuture 5 points6 points ago

    It's sort of depressing, actually. Every time I make a road trip along a major highway, I think about the possibilities if I were to just stop my car and walk straight into a field, a tree line, a mountain slope...and 90% of the time, there's a barbed wire fence there, keeping me out, surely owned by someone, if not the government itself.

    [–]ukepriest 2 points3 points ago

    Wait, so how do you distinguish between a back yard and say, a couple acres of woods behind someone's house? Where do you draw the line?

    [–]JeffersonTwighlight- 10 points11 points ago

    I live in Northern Sweden and my house is situated on the edge of a forest and I "own" a small 10x20m patch of forest just at the start.

    I have dogs so I have a small fence around and also one of these fences ( But the woods are unfenced.

    In winter people often take a short cut over my land to access the woods for skiing, I jokenly pretend to be angry about it to my wife but really I don't mind at all. Often you can clearly distinguish where a property ends and everyone is cool for the most part, that or they bitch about it to their village friends.

    [–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

    If people don't want you on their land, they'll build a fence and/or post signs. If neither of those are present, you're good to wander unless someone with a gun shows up and tells you to leave, at which point you'd probably better do it regardless of whether it's actually their land.

    [–]bunker_man 2 points3 points ago

    If you can't easily see their house from where you are.

    [–]Haran999 10 points11 points ago

    So, do they chase you off their land or what? I think I would just go about as I normally would and just apologize with an european accent if someone stopped me.

    [–]Smilge 34 points35 points ago

    I'm having trouble understanding exactly in what situations you'd be wondering around on someone's land. Are we talking someone's front yard? Or more like pulling over on the side of the road where there are no houses and hiking around? If it's the latter, people would usually call the police, and the police would let you know you're trespassing and you have to leave. But usually private property will have a fence around it to keep livestock in, and/or "Private property - No trespassing" signs every 100 feet.

    [–]TheMasque 26 points27 points ago

    My friend owns a house on the Scottish isle of Arran, this house has several acres that extend to a beach several hundred metres away. Many people would incidentally roam there, as it's his land but it's not closed off. Technically speaking you have every right to walk on this land, in order to enjoy the sights and make the most of Scotland's scenery.

    The general rule is that if you can be concievably accused of property damage from "roaming", then you'll be done for vandalism or breaking and entry or some such thing. If there's not a fence around it, you can go there if you like. Climbing a fence is a no-go when legally roaming.

    A lot of our paths and sites, belong to the National heritage, but many paths up hills, or scenic rivers actually belong to large country houses near by and the families who have owned the area for generations.

    But really it belongs to everyone. They just have the right to build a fence.

    [–]Platypuskeeper 9 points10 points ago

    I don't know how it works in Scotland, but in Sweden you're allowed to pass a fence. You can put up a fence around your house, with limitations (e.g. it's unlikely you'd be allowed to fence off 'your' part of the shoreline on a property that's on the water). But for land in general, you're explicitly prohibited from putting up a fence on your property for the sole purpose of keeping people out. You can put one up to protect grazing animals, or to keep wild animals out and some other reasons, but you can't e.g. put a fence around your piece of forest just because you don't want people there. And people have a right to climb your fence if it's blocking access to land covered by allemansrätten. (Naturally you're still responsible for any property damage your behavior might cause)

    [–]unkorrupted 6 points7 points ago

    have the right to build a fence

    Driving around Florida, I've noticed a distinct trend. Farms with Irish & Scottish names tend to have really low fences that seem designed to keep the cattle in with minimal effort. Farms with more English sounding names have like, eight-foot tall inverted walls wrapped with barbed wire.

    [–]TheMasque 9 points10 points ago

    Swear to God a lot of fences I see in Scotland consist of a single strand of half-heartedly barbed wire at chest-level just so that cows can't figure out how to get past.

    [–]Mamadog5 12 points13 points ago

    A fence is only a psychological barrier to a cow. Trust me, those suckers can jump six feet from a standing start. They are also strong. They can easily break most fences, they just don't know they can.

    I used to keep my cows in with a single hot wire. It was about nose high to a cow so they could see it. Worked perfectly.

    [–]Ihmhi3 3 points4 points ago

    Cows are either really chill or really lazy.

    "Aw fuck Bob, there's a wire. I guess we could, maybe, duck under it? Or jump over it? Fuck it, I'ma eat some grass. Ooh, check out that heifer! AY GURL!"

    [–]Peanutking 2 points3 points ago

    Well... I just learned a new word, thank you.

    [–]unkorrupted 1 point2 points ago

    McSomething Farms & Irish Acres etc.. in rural FL don't even use the barbed wire, just a plank of wood below chest-level.

    On the other hand, I've had friends get shot at with salt rock for trying to pick mushrooms after finding a wide hole in a tall chain-link fence.

    Not a lot of consistency in the states, and it's usually safe to stay well back.

    [–]Guilty_Pleasure 2 points3 points ago

    I think that's more confirmation bias than a trend...

    [–]SUM_Poindexter 4 points5 points ago

    got any good stories of people protecting their land from you?

    [–][deleted] ago


      [–]Silverkarn 2 points3 points ago

      This kind of crosses over into eavesment. Also, the adverse possession are not the same in every state, in some states the property remains your property no matter who uses it for however length of time.

      EDIT: I just checked Wisconsin, my state. Adverse Possession requires 20 uninterrupted years before you can sue for ownership of the land, and it must be proven.

      [–][deleted] ago


        [–]kjartanbj 12 points13 points ago

        Same in Iceland.. and even better , you can drive around the highlands in the wintertime when there is snow nearly everywhere, there are only a few exceptions in the summertime you are only allowed to drive on marked tracks , no offroad , but you can walk everywhere , even over farmers land with the exception if its being used growing crops or harvesting something

        In for example Norway you are not allowed as best I know to drive on snow where ever you want like here In Iceland, Im not sure how it's in Sweden, but I think it's the same as in norway, correct me if Im wrong

        [–]eye_sick 21 points22 points ago

        Urban explorers use this law to their advantage and Sweden isn't the only place with such laws.

        [–]DonTago3 139 points140 points ago

        Part of the reason that this sort of law would never work in the States is that if, for instance, a kid went mountain-biking on a private piece of land way out in the woods because it was not adequately gated off, and if the kid were to severely hurt himself during this excursion, the owner could be sued by the parents of the kid under the law of Premises Liability.

        While Premises Liability is generally used for instances of people lawfully being on your property [delivery man hurting himself], sometimes even a trespasser can sue a homeowner for injuries on your property. To make out a case for liability for negligence a plaintiff must show that the owner owed a duty of care to the injured person; that the owner breached that duty and that that breach was the proximate cause of the injuries [maybe not properly gating off one's private property]. Whether there is a duty of care in particular situations is a matter of law and depends upon fairness and public policy. The standard of care an owner is required to observe differs depending on the status of the person injured. Higher standards of care exist for persons invited to be on the property while lower standards exist for person just permitted to be on the property and even persons trespassing on the property.

        So, therefore, in the States, people would be less than enthused if all of a sudden anyone could walk onto their property at any given time, but that owner could also be liable if those people hurt themselves. I am not sure how Premises Liability works in other countries, but unfortunately, it would prevent a thing like 'The Right to Public Access' from existing here.

        Edit: typo

        [–]Naga67 104 points105 points ago

        I believe that allemansrätten makes it completely/nearly impossible to sue someone if you hurt yourself on their land

        [–]Solna 36 points37 points ago

        It would follow from core legal principles that you couldn't seek damages for that, it has nothing to do with allemansrätten.

        [–]Zoesan 20 points21 points ago

        logical principles


        [–]AmateurSanta 78 points79 points ago

        Being in Sweden makes it completely/nearly impossible to sue someone.

        [–]swedishguy90 41 points42 points ago

        Not really, it's just that the amounts that you can actually sue someone for is a fraction of what you can in the US.

        [–][deleted] 24 points25 points ago

        I believe you also have to prove that the person you are suing was in some way responsible, either through intent or gross negligence. IE - You couldn't successfully sue someone just because you tripped over a root in the woods behind their house just because it's technically their property, but you could if they dug a pit and then failed to make any kind of indication that there was a pit there.

        [–]CutterJohn 12 points13 points ago

        You'd honestly not get away with that here in the US as well. Obviously there are the rare exceptions, but we hear about the 0.01% of ridiculous suits that succeed, not the other 99.99% that are tossed out.

        [–]SippantheSwede 17 points18 points ago

        [–]peter-pickle 16 points17 points ago

        And that's why building skateboarding ramp half pipes is such a pain in the ass.

        [–]Solna 19 points20 points ago

        Is there no requirement for adequate causality between some sort of negligence and injury? Is it considered negligent simply not to fence off your land, i.e. people can't be trusted with nature?

        [–]jonny360 46 points47 points ago

        Yes. In the states if you have a swimming pool or lake and someone sneaks in and drowns you can be sued if it wasn't gated off well enough. This is due to the attractive nuisance doctrine.

        [–]Zoesan 126 points127 points ago

        That is fucking retarded.

        [–]TheMasque 29 points30 points ago

        Do you know what's more fucking retarded? A good lawyer could play both sides of this case and win.

        [–]Neebat2 29 points30 points ago

        Either side. No matter how good the lawyer, they're still forbidden from playing both sides.

        [–]el__duderino 15 points16 points ago

        In the same case, yes, but I don't think he meant that

        [–]ca_fighterace 16 points17 points ago

        As a swede living in the US I have a hard time with the law allowing something like this too. But then this country is run by lawyers for lawyers. It's all about the money here ;)

        [–]Weentastic 20 points21 points ago

        You can make snide remarks all you want about fat, stupid Americans, but this is the thing about America that I really don't like. We are a litigious people.

        [–]Gwindor1 29 points30 points ago

        We more or less make jokes about your litigation culture here in Sweden. "Haha, if this was the US I'd sue you!"

        [–][deleted] 18 points19 points ago

        "And if this was Sweden, I'd eat all your berries, jackass!"

        [–]Colalbsmi 5 points6 points ago

        If you have a dirt pile in your yard and a kid kills himself while playing in it without your permission, you're liable, which is why you should put a tarp or temporary fencing around it.

        [–]gvsteve 4 points5 points ago

        Could we just pass a law that overturns attractive nuisance doctrine?

        [–]Technobebop 6 points7 points ago

        Causality has to do with the nature of the injury-ie, your poorly maintained path caused me to fall of my bike. This is a duty issue, and the question of duty in land ownership depends upon the relatiobship between property owner and injured. Llike /u/dontago said, there are only 3 classifications of guests under the English common law: business guests, social guests, and trespassers. I'm sure under Swedish law there is another category for "wanderer", to whom no duty is owed.

        However, i believe that this has more to do with different cultural approaches to property than tort liability. Liability here rests upon the existence of the property rights, not vice versa.

        [–]Solna 4 points5 points ago

        I agree the difference in approach to property is important. To illustrate, in a recent case one of the judges of the Supreme Court wrote that "ownership in Swedish and other Scandinavian law is of old considered a relative term". To take one example, possession matters more than ownership for protection against creditors, and transfer of ownership isn't always the same as transfer of risk either.

        It should be said though that Swedish law is more restrictive in awarding damages in general. For example we would normally place the bar higher for how adequate the causality has to be, even when there is a strict liability similar to this one which is rare.

        A more important difference that is not directly relevant here but can be interesting to point out nonetheless is that we don't have punitive damages, it is endeavored to put the wronged party in a no worse or better position than had the wrongful act not occurred, and sometimes not even that, if the damage goes far beyond what could be expected in a comparable situation.

        Admittedly somewhat strange, perhaps, is that you sometimes only have to pay what the wronged party wasn't insured for, and sometimes you don't have to pay if it is expected that the wronged party should have been insured.

        Also we don't award damages to third parties to contractual relationships, which does sometimes screw third parties over, but I don't know how this works elsewhere.

        [–]Neebat2 5 points6 points ago

        I'm sure there's no such thing as "to whom no duty is owed". You have a duty not to set camouflaged pit traps for anyone.

        [–]Kaghuros4 5 points6 points ago

        But that's not negligence, that's malice. Malice is criminal. Well, maybe negligence if they were animal traps...

        [–]ataraxic89 5 points6 points ago

        I disagree with that reason.

        What I mean is that we could simply change the law to the allemansrätten way. I mean, we could change the laws to make it legal.

        What wouldnt work is that americans have a much more selfish sense of ownership. It is not only theirs to use, it is theirs to prevent others use.

        Also, we simply dont have the crime levels that would allow this. In the norselands crime is so tiny that a person is far less likely to be casing your house for robbery, or preparing to murder you than in america. If I found someone near my home I wouldnt trust them, regardless of it being my property.

        [–]Xo0om 37 points38 points ago

        Liability laws in the US are absurd. Common sense doesn't apply.

        [–]HasFactsVotingYES 18 points19 points ago

        i think you mean the "I am not responsible for my actions" laws

        [–]Livingliver 3 points4 points ago

        Thats too bad. I'm on the east coast and we don't have nearly as many parks as the west. So the camping looks like a parking lot mostly. I wish it were okay for me just to go camp on the edge of someones farm and enjoy the view and stars. Too much to ask for I guess.

        [–]Mamadog5 4 points5 points ago

        Why don't you try asking? When I had a farm, I let people fish and whatnot all the long as they asked first so I knew they were there.

        [–]skintigh 7 points8 points ago

        Yes, a trespasser can sue. Anyone can sue anyone, the question is will a trespasser win? Short of setting boobie traps for trespassers, I imagine it would be rare if not impossible to win that case.

        [–]meatwad75892 2 points3 points ago

        So the burglar falling through a skylight scenario in Liar Liar could totally happen?

        [–]hamolton 2 points3 points ago

        You can change multiple laws. It's not like our government is that limited.

        [–]snacktonomy 49 points50 points ago

        Since a lot of people are saying that this would be unheard of in the US... true. But there are a lot of trails that pass through private lands. You can gather berries on a large tract of land, as long as you are not causing damage, leaving trash, or being a dick. It's a matter of people not being dicks.

        You know why the national parks were closed during the shutdown? It's because people are dicks. If you don't regulate, you get illegal ATV riding, hunting, trash, beer cans thrown around, etc.

        TL:DR: people are dicks. Dicks.

        [–]garlic_cereal 2 points3 points ago

        it's not unheard of. I live in VT and in this state I have the legal right to hunt/hike/shoot/fish whatever on any land, public or private, that is not explicitly posted with "no tresspassing signs" every x number of feet around the entire boundary

        [–]Mr_Weebles 18 points19 points ago

        My wonderful state of New Hampshire has a similar law. Unless the land is posted, you can hunt, fish and recreate on the property.

        [–]dickpicaday 2 points3 points ago

        What do you mean by posted?

        [–][deleted] 12 points13 points ago

        If you see a big sign that says "POSTED: NO TRESPASSING. PRIVATE PROPERTY." Then it's best to stay clear.

        [–]Grindstone50k 5 points6 points ago

        So that's why the signs have the "POSTED" part of the warning! I always kind of wondered why they bothered adding that.

        [–]HasFactsVotingYES 1 point2 points ago

        That's exactly how it should be!

        [–]brokendownandbusted 14 points15 points ago

        I believe they don't have trespassing laws in Norway. Would that be similar to this situation?

        [–]Herax 26 points27 points ago

        Yes, we have the same law. You cannot deny others access to your land unless it is with their safety in mind.

        But on the other hand the law forbids disturbing the owners privacy, as well as camping for more than 1 night, or causing harm to his land.

        [–]rsharvey 25 points26 points ago

        We have the same in Scotland, since land reform in 2003. In fact it also extends to camping, canoeing, mountain biking etc.

        It's a really important civil liberty if you want a populace who feel ownership and responsibility over their collective territory. It's especially important in the highlands where, in reality, huge tracts of the hills and glens, which were depopulated by deadly force a few hundred years ago, are owned to this day by a small handful of immensely rich Lairds. Despite all our grumbling about being more socialistic than they are 'down South', we have one of the biggest wealth disparities in Europe.

        [–]themagnificentsphynx 1 point2 points ago


        Is that like the Russian Oligarchs, just... Nice people?

        [–]tjtoml 5 points6 points ago

        say "Lords" with a scottish accent.

        [–]rsharvey 2 points3 points ago

        Some of them are absolutely oligarchs.

        Traditionally they were the clan chieftains, who become Scotland's gentry when the agricultural reforms of the 1700's saw the socialistic clan system broken up, and the people relocated to small towns and villages, built for the purpose, to create a more feudal system of land ownership, more in line with England and the lowlands of Scotland. This was to allow for the modernisation of farming, but it is the reason why so many highlanders and Islanders had to emigrate to the US and Canada.

        But in the last half century or so, the gentry have fallen on hard times, and about half of the 'old money' have been forced to sell their estates. This means that, for example, 50,000 acres of Ross-shire is owned by the CEO of LEGO, the toy company. Other parts are owned by rich people from Dubai, Egypt, Hong Kong, America etc.

        But the old Lairds, for all their wealth and social separation generally feel a burden of patriarchal responsibility to care for the land they own. The foreign landowners don't generally feel that burden.

        [–]claeskjellberg 5 points6 points ago

        Here's a PDF in english from the swedish ''nature protection agency'' Naturvårdsverket

        I dont think i've ever met a fellow swede who dislike this. This is what I consider ''a free country''

        the 5 biggest swedish lakes and the coastline is open for fishing, but for the rest of our lakes you need a permit. also all hunting require a permit.

        as for wild berries and such, only 1% of swedish blueberriers get picked by humans, the rest just rots away or get eaten by animals. i'd say you might as well keep it free for anyone

        [–]PFisken 2 points3 points ago

        There is a rather vocal right wing group of people on SvD who regulary cry and moan about how we live in North Korea and should either kill or curtail "Allemansrätten".

        [–]Galdive 21 points22 points ago

        This is something that most Swedes take for granted, the ability to just go out into the forest and gather blueberries,wild raspberries,blackberries and of course tasty mushrooms like these and these without getting in trouble for trespassing on owned land.

        [–]bICEmeister 20 points21 points ago

        Don't forget cloudberries and lingonberries!

        [–]Galdive 5 points6 points ago

        sadly no cloudberries can be found reliably where I live and I only pick lingonberries in small amounts to make rårörda lingon(crudely mashed lingonberries and sugar) when im having some game meat for dinner.

        [–]StevenSongtime 7 points8 points ago

        I had grand visions of hiking the hillsides in Sweden, and then I read OP's username.

        [–]Marqhuitannes 17 points18 points ago

        If it makes you change your mind, here is a picture from Sarek National park in Lapland, Sweden. And don't mind OP behind that rock.

        [–]atomnight 6 points7 points ago

        This is really cool when I went to Sweden with boy scouts our group from Sweden just picked a spot and said we're going to stay here

        [–]huormis 4 points5 points ago

        Same in Finland too.

        [–]SpookySP 10 points11 points ago

        Same in Finland. It's called Jokamiehenoikeus. Basically means you're free to travel pretty much any place unless it's fenced off. You are also allowed to gather berries, camp etc.

        [–]sajhe 11 points12 points ago

        The concept of NOT having this law as a swede is realy hard to comprehend.

        [–]Anarcho_Capitalist 7 points8 points ago

        So In Sweden public land actually means public land.

        [–]THE_BOOK_OF_DUMPSTER 2 points3 points ago

        You have this freedom on certain kinds of private land as well though.

        [–]Exium 2 points3 points ago

        Serious question, does this still exclude being able to just set up camp and eventually build your own stuff there?

        [–]swedishhouserazzia 5 points6 points ago

        Yes, you are not allowed to leave any lasting changes on the environment.

        [–]roomer21 12 points13 points ago

        You always hear that Sweden is an amazing place. Does anyone know of the downfalls to living/being in Sweden, is there a dark side?

        [–][deleted] 16 points17 points ago

        All your furniture requires an allen wrench that's too small to turn the screw.

        [–]ajabaja 40 points41 points ago

        It's cold, dark and damp.

        People are more reserved.

        We bend over for American corporations and their goverment (FRA and CopySwede laws in particular).

        We have a problem with integrating refugee immigrants, which started decades ago. A whole can of worms.

        [–]Stimzz 17 points18 points ago

        And the second highest tax pressure in the world after Denmark.

        [–]MuffinFactory 2 points3 points ago

        To be fair, you get "discounts" and "free" stuff by paying those taxes, like medical care and dental care etc. all the stuff you buy is also "tax-free"

        [–]YOU_ARE_A_FUCK 18 points19 points ago

        That's just a good thing. Well, it's one of the best things really - as long as the government isn't corrupt, which they aren't in Sweden. It's a democracy which actually works.

        [–]imevul 13 points14 points ago

        Don't be naive; all governments are somewhat corrupt. I do agree though, that the Swedish government may only have a tiny amount of corruption.

        The last few years of political events have proven that some corruption exists. Otherwise, the American corporations wouldn't have much to say about Swedish laws for example.

        [–]YOU_ARE_A_FUCK 7 points8 points ago

        Well, I can agree that a small amount of corruption may exist as I don't have any evidence for one or the other. Though I feel your example is pretty bad, especially if you're hinting to the piratebay case? I really don't think that was as much about corruption as it was fear from mr. world police. This is also hard to prove one or the other, I just felt I needed to write my thoughts down.

        [–]imevul 7 points8 points ago

        Not only that, but other weird things as well. For example:

        • The Assange case.
        • The practice of trying to get laws passed while lots of politicians are known to be on holiday.
        • Having negotiations in secret and trying to pass laws that the people have been kept in the dark about.
        • Trying to sneak laws into completely unrelated trade agreements and such.

        I would post links to these things, but it's late and I'm lazy.

        I guess it also depends on how you define corruption. Letting another country control yours like a puppet (exaggerated, I know,) definitely sounds like corruption. Fear of the world police is no excuse. There are probably people on payroll from the US government or corporations as well, with the specific task of influencing the Swedish government from within. Considering the US is having their dirty hands in everybody's business, the likelihood of this occurring is pretty high.

        [–]you_donkey_ 5 points6 points ago

        What is weird about the Assange case?

        [–]tasty_pathogen 7 points8 points ago

        It is weird because in other parts of the world it is ok to have sex with a woman even if she resists and says no.

        [–]pissdrinker2013 5 points6 points ago


        [–]my_own_evidence 9 points10 points ago

        Ice. Cold.

        Very, very dark winters.

        Cabin fever.

        [–]deviaatio 3 points4 points ago

        To be fair, summers are nice and worm. I rather have four seasons than one. The dark period without snow is pretty lame though.

        [–]Sarria22 6 points7 points ago

        So as a Washingtonian I'd feel right at home.

        [–]my_own_evidence 5 points6 points ago

        I'm not talking metaphorically.

        [–]themagnificentsphynx 1 point2 points ago

        Ice. Cold.

        You mean... No big spiders, ever?

        [–]spock_block 2 points3 points ago

        Hm let's see:

        1. Nope, there are no downsides Sweden is best and you should feel bad.

        [–]AwesomeSauce2000 4 points5 points ago

        Classic Sweden, do what you want as long as you don't interact with stranger danger

        [–]ericzbd 9 points10 points ago

        I remember hearing a Native American guy in a movie say something to the effect of "if you are going to sell the land, why not sell the sky?" For some reason this stuck with me to the point of making me feel as though land ownership is a farce to some degree

        [–]beaverfan 10 points11 points ago

        Do we really ever own land in America?

        If you don't pay taxes on the land you'll lose ownership, and if the city, county, state, or federal governments to build something on our land, eminent domain means you have to sell it to them. If you want to build something on the land you have to get permission first, in the form of a permit, which you pay for.

        [–]Grindstone50k 7 points8 points ago

        Nope, we rent it from the government.

        [–]waffleninja 8 points9 points ago

        This wouldn't work in the US because idiots would come and wreck rock formations that are hundreds of thousands of years old.

        [–]daho0n 24 points25 points ago

        The rocks in Sweden are younger? Or don't they have idiots?

        [–]jbisinla 2 points3 points ago

        Technically speaking, the rock formations are still hundreds of thousands of years old, the idiots just accelerated the erosion process by a few millennia.

        [–]divsky 8 points9 points ago

        Nice try, Swedish Tourism Board.

        [–]infinis 4 points5 points ago

        So I can't even shoot any trespassers?

        [–]garychencool 1 point2 points ago

        Hm, looks like a great place to film stuff