HOA and trampoline safety net I live (rent) a condo where every back yard is approx. 14 x 20 feet. Each back yard has a fence that's 6 feet high or so. I put up a trampoline in the back yard but the safety net is over the height of the fence. The HOA has a rule that I can not have anything taller than the fence. There are some exceptions to the rule of having something taller than the fence (e.g umbrella, trees). I asked for an exception for the safety net and was denied and was instructed to take it down. I was told that the trampoline itself is not a violation. The safety net is 95% see through. It's clearly an attempt to persuade me to remove the trampoline all together. Again the trampoline itself is not considered a violation. There have been noise complaints. The kids get loud sometimes. This is not a violation of any rules either. It is possible for me to take the net down and put it back up when the kids want to jump. It's a bit of a pain in the butt though. Each time I put it back when the kids want to jump. I get a message from the HOA to take it down… which I do. My girlfriend doesn't want me to remove it completely for safety. I'm at a point where I want to remove it completely though. If I remove the net and someone gets hurt, can I sue the HOA? Can I fight the HOA as a renter? Can I be evicted?
The answer depends in part on your relationship to the HOA, and your lease. Normally, you would have no direct relationship to the HOA, instead your legal relationship is with the owner (who has a relationship to the HOA). The owner of the condo has a legal obligation to follow certain rules, the violation of which will result in a penalty (imposed on him). You presumably are leasing the place from an owner, so the HOA won't impose any penalty on you, since you have no direct connection with the HOA. You then have to look at your rental agreement, to see what obligations were stated, whereby you have to follow the HOA rules. If there is a clause that says "You must follow the rules", then if you don't, it's possible you can be evicted by the owner. If there isn't such a clause, the owner would suffer the consequences of your rule-breaking. You can try to sue the HOA if someone gets hurt, but that would be a waste of your time and money since the suit would be dismissed (the HOA is not responsible for injuries that you are legally responsible for). Whether or not you should try such a lawsuit is between you and your attorney. You can try to fight the HOA (politically), within limits, e.g. by writing letters, or speaking to the HOA or board of directors, as long as they allow it (since you aren't a homeowner, they don't have to listen to you). Again, whether you should do this is between you and your attorney, and anyhow that's not a legal question. You could not, however, sue the HOA to force them to change the rules.
In Connecticut, this is covered by the firefighter's rule. Police and fire personnel entering a property as part of their official duties are considered licensees, which limits the duties of the landowner. The rules are as follows: You can't intentionally hurt or lay a trap for the licensee. If you know or should know the licensee is there, you need to exercise due care with them. You don't have to worry about obvious hazards (but keep in mind that it's harder to see stuff at night). If you're doing something dangerous, you need to watch out for them. If you know about a hidden hazard, you must warn them. I'm not sure how in-depth you need to go with the warnings; various things I find suggest the duty to warn might only be there when you know or should know the licensee is present, but signs are a good idea regardless. On the other hand, if you do need to warn them, you might need to mention the specific locations of the pits you actually know about. However, there's no duty at all to proactively look for possible hazards. This rule originated as a rule for professional firefighters responding to a negligently-started fire: the idea is that professional firefighters sign up to do a dangerous job, and letting them sue for hazards inherent in their job (they aren't called without a fire) is a bad idea. Also, since they cannot be denied entry, go in places not open to the public, and can arrive at any hour, needing to keep the property safe for them is an unreasonable burden. Of course, there's an exception if a law is passed to protect their safety, because statutes override common law. The rule has since been extended in some states to police, and to situations besides the very problem they were called for. Other states have abolished it. In any event, this is for civil liability only: this is when cops can sue for injuries caused to them.
Short Answer In real life, can the owner of the house be held civilly or criminally liable in this situation? No. Long Answer On one hand, the pool did not have a fence despite it being legally required. On the other, they did enter the property illegally. Negligence Per Se And Attractive Nuisance The doctrine you are considering first is called &quot;negligence per se&quot; and states that failure to follow a penal statute or other law or regulation is negligent as a matter of law if the harm caused by failing to take the action it mandates is the kind of harm that the statute was intended to prevent. It isn't perfectly clear, but the answer to that is probably &quot;no, this is not a negligence per se&quot; case. Laws requiring pools to be fenced are largely directed at a particular type of tortious conduct called an &quot;attractive nuisance&quot; that could cause, for example, children who can't swim to be attracted to a pool that is dangerous to them without supervision. These laws are not intended to protect adult robbers (if the person engaged in robbery were an armed seven years old, that might be another story). California, however, has discarded the attractive nuisance doctrine that used to be part of its law, in 1970, in the case of Beard v. Atchison. Common Law Premises Liability In California The common law duty that a property owner owes to trespassers is to keep it free of deadly traps. You have liability if you turn your lawn into a literal mine field full of explosive land mines. But, you did not at common law owe a duty of reasonable care to prevent foreseeable accidental injury to trespassers such as robbers. So, there would be no common law duty here. But, California has abandoned the strict common law distinction in premises liability between invitees, licensees, and trespassers in lieu of a general duty to use reasonable care that is fairly tailored to the precise circumstances of the accident. California Civil Jury Instruction No. 1001 (2000) citing Ann M. v.Pacific Plaza Shopping Center, 6 Cal.4th 666, 674-675, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 137, 863 P.2d 207 (1993). California, rather than focusing on the nature of the duty that the landlord owes to a trespasser, focuses more on this factor as part of the question of issues like whether the harm was foreseeable. A Statute That Is On Point And Controlling Here Despite this evolution in California's common law of premises liability, however, California does have a statute that singles out felons who are injured on someone else's property in the course of a felony, specifically, California Civil Code § 847, which states (emphasis added): (a) An owner, including, but not limited to, a public entity, as defined in Section 811.2 of the Government Code , of any estate or any other interest in real property, whether possessory or nonpossessory, shall not be liable to any person for any injury or death that occurs upon that property during the course of or after the commission of any of the felonies set forth in subdivision (b) by the injured or deceased person. (b) The felonies to which the provisions of this section apply are the following: (1) Murder or voluntary manslaughter; (2) mayhem; (3) rape; (4) sodomy by force, violence, duress, menace, or threat of great bodily harm; (5) oral copulation by force, violence, duress, menace, or threat of great bodily harm; (6) lewd acts on a child under the age of 14 years; (7) any felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison for life; (8) any other felony in which the defendant inflicts great bodily injury on any person, other than an accomplice, or any felony in which the defendant uses a firearm; (9) attempted murder; (10) assault with intent to commit rape or robbery; (11) assault with a deadly weapon or instrument on a peace officer; (12) assault by a life prisoner on a noninmate; (13) assault with a deadly weapon by an inmate; (14) arson; (15) exploding a destructive device or any explosive with intent to injure; (16) exploding a destructive device or any explosive causing great bodily injury; (17) exploding a destructive device or any explosive with intent to murder; (18) burglary; (19) robbery; (20) kidnapping; (21) taking of a hostage by an inmate of a state prison; (22) any felony in which the defendant personally used a dangerous or deadly weapon; (23) selling, furnishing, administering, or providing heroin, cocaine, or phencyclidine (PCP) to a minor; (24) grand theft as defined in Sections 487 and 487a of the Penal Code ; and (25) any attempt to commit a crime listed in this subdivision other than an assault. (c) The limitation on liability conferred by this section arises at the moment the injured or deceased person commences the felony or attempted felony and extends to the moment the injured or deceased person is no longer upon the property. (d) The limitation on liability conferred by this section applies only when the injured or deceased person's conduct in furtherance of the commission of a felony specified in subdivision (b) proximately or legally causes the injury or death. (e) The limitation on liability conferred by this section arises only upon the charge of a felony listed in subdivision (b) and the subsequent conviction of that felony or a lesser included felony or misdemeanor arising from a charge of a felony listed in subdivision (b). During the pendency of any such criminal action, a civil action alleging this liability shall be abated and the statute of limitations on the civil cause of action shall be tolled. (f) This section does not limit the liability of an owner or an owner's agent which otherwise exists for willful, wanton, or criminal conduct, or for willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity. (g) The limitation on liability provided by this section shall be in addition to any other available defense. This statute is controlling and would probably immunize the property owner from liability in the fact pattern of the question. My initial review suggests that originally, it contained only parts (a) to (c) and (g) which are more emphatic. But, later, parts (d) to (f), which created narrow exceptions to this general rule, were added.
Firstly, yours is not a valid argument. What is meant by "generally accessible" is public places like plazas, stretches of green by the road, parks, parking lots, etc. The definition is kind of a negative and could be more easily phrased as: "You may camp at A) designated camping areas or B) private places where you are entitled to camp". This means you either have to find a camping area where you pay a fee for a period of time, or you may camp on private grounds that either belong to you, or you have been given explicit permission to camp, say in a private garden or field. Of course this is practically impossible if you don't know anyone in there. But, the screenshot explicitly restricts this rule with the leading prase "Im Gemeindegebiet" which means if you leave the legal boundaries of Werfen, Salzburg county law applies (Which may or may not be similar). Disclaimer: While I don't have legal background, I can tell from personal experience that local governments are touchy on this and striking up camp somewhere where you are not allowed to will at least (if detected) require you to leave the premises immediately and the police may charge you with trespassing.
When screening potential tenants, what is the proper way to turn them down, and the legal implications if the tenant asks for more details? The "proper" way to turn someone down depends on why you decided to turn him or her down. As long as you did not decline to rent to a tenant because of information you learned in a credit report or commercially available criminal background check, you are not required to notify them. However, it is a good business practice to notify them in writing as Nij's post suggests. However, it would be a good idea to keep a copy of the letter for you records and possibly write down some notes. Such as, "other applicants had higher income," or "could not verify rental history." These kinds notes one the letters you mail out will be you friend should you ever be accused of improper discrimination on the basis of race, gender, religion, etc.. Declining to Rent Based Upon a Credit Check or Commercially Available Background Check: The federal law that governs credit checks and commercially available background checks is the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). The FCRA regulates "consumer reports," which includes credit reports and criminal background checks that are assembled by companies. (The FCRA does not apply if you, yourself, are going to the state police or courthouse to get background check records). Under the FCRA, requires that people who make decisions against someone based on information in a credit or background check, notify that person. The FCRA calls this decision against someone an "adverse action" and requires that you provide the affected party the following information: The name, address and telephone number of the company that supplied the consumer report, including a toll-free telephone number for companies that maintain files nationwide; A statement that the company that supplied the report did not make the decision to take the adverse action and cannot give the specific reasons for it; and A notice of the individual's right to dispute the accuracy or completeness of any information the company furnished, and the consumer's right to a free report from the company upon request within 60 days. The FCRA calls this notice an "Adverse Action Notice." See 15 U.S.C. 1681m. An adverse action notice can be oral, written, or electronic. Obviously, written or electronic would be the best since you can prove that it was sent. Also, be aware that the FCRA has civil penalties if it is violated. The Federal Trade Commission has a helpful guide that lists some of the basics of when you do and do not need to provide adverse action notice. Website: Using Consumer Reports: What Landlords Need to Know Brochure: FTC Facts for Business However, it does not cover criminal background checks, which have many of the same rules as the credit checks under the FCRA.
This depends on the law of the specific jurisdiction, but there is non-trivial similarity in those rules across the US. The general rule is that the person who owns the property must maintain the property. There are often local ordinances that explicitly say that, for example this which is the legal mechanism behind this guidance on tree-trimming. A municipality can do the trimming, or they can send official letters to property owners telling them to trim the bushes. It does not matter whether the sign is on your property via an easement, what matters is where the tree is. You are not responsible for trimming your neighbor's tree if the stop sign is on your property.
You can trim bushes at your property line, as you have done. There is little hope for forcing a neighbor to cut more radically on their side. It is possible that a fire ordinance could be an issue, so it the bushes are a credible fire-related threat to property, the fire department might intervene (your belief that the bushes pose a threat is countered by their presumed belief that there is no threat). There may be local plant-height ordinance, but perhaps bushes are restricted by local regulations, so check whether they are in violation there (a rather remote possibility). Finally, there could be view-protecting ordinances or CCRs, but again those are rare.
Your numbers are off The states don't seize a mile next to every road, as farms don't suffer from traffic noise. They also don't seize land when they just rebuild a road, but that is still part of the 400k acres of road. In fact, most &quot;new roads&quot; are rebuilding old ones, and a huge part of the rest is through undeveloped land that is owned by the state or farmers - and thus cheap and doesn't need a mile-wide strip of noise protection. Eminent domain cases are RARE 2018 saw 87 cases of eminent domain in colorado - most of them for buildings no longer deemed habitable and condemned to be torn down, then re-developed. The federal government lists 1001 real property cases filed by the US in the same year's report, not indicating what kind of development or redevelopment would happen there, or if it is Eminent Domain or some other type of real property case. Under Eminent Domain, the seized land can be used for any public use. And in strange cases, it happens even to what used to be a private road and shopping complex in front of Walt Disney World - to build an interchange.