Can a would-be visitor be legally a tresspasser? This is based on the thread Property Owners &amp; Injury Liability w/ Signage (US, WV) on this site and the comments on my answer there. This is specifically about the law in West Virginia, but nswerd for other jurisdictions would be welcome. §61-3B-3. (Trespass on property other than structure or conveyance.) of the West Virginia Code provides that: (a) It is an unlawful trespass for any person to knowingly, and without being authorized, licensed or invited, to enter or remain on any property, other than a structure or conveyance, as to which notice against entering or remaining is either given by actual communication to such person or by posting, fencing or cultivation. Suppose that a landowner in West Virginia has a fence around a property consisting of land and a house, with a latched but not locked gate. Suppose further that there are signs at regualr intervals along the fence saying &quot;No Trespassing. No Entry. No Exceptions.&quot; Now suppose that a private person lifts the latch, enters the property, and knocks at the front door of the house. The person may be a door-to-door seller or political agent, or a neighbor. The person intends no unlawful act, such as theft. The person has no official purpose. Is such a person legally a trespasser under §61-3B-3., whether or not prosecution is likely? If the person is not, what law or case law grants the right to enter the property in spite of fence and signs? I am looking for a specific citation or authoritative source. Edit after an answer was posted §55-7-27. (Liability of possessor of real property for harm to a trespasser.) (a) A possessor of real property, including an owner, lessee or other lawful occupant, owes no duty of care to a trespasser except in those circumstances where a common-law right-of-action existed as of the effective date of this section, including the duty to refrain from willfully or wantonly causing the trespasser injury. I am particularly interested in whether the hypothetical non-official person is a trespasser the the degree that the &quot;no duty of care&quot; language from §55-7-27 applies,
There is case law recognizing an implied-in-fact license to enter though an unlocked gate to knock on the front door (although I haven't seen West Virginia law in particular). Some case law can be found here: In Florida v. Jardines, 133 S.Ct. 1409 (2013), the [United States] Supreme Court indicated that a police officer’s right to walk up to a front door of a person’s home is subject to an implied license based on existing social norms. . . . In United States v. Denim, 2013 WL 4591469 (E.D.Tenn. August 28, 2013), the district court (adopting the magistrate judge’s R&amp;R) held that “no trespassing signs” do not revoke the implied license and that officers can approach the front door and knock on the door despite the signs[.] In the absence of a sign such as &quot;no solicitors&quot; (which would bar a door-to-door seller or political agent) or a more explicit sign right at the gate (&quot;No neighbors or law enforcement officers, or anyone else I have not told in advance may have access, may cross this front gate even if it is unlocked&quot;), the likelihood of a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt in those circumstances is bleak. One of the cases above doubts that even the specific no trespassing sign would be effective (suggesting that the implied license is to some extent conclusively implied in law, rather than implied in fact). Also, certain officials, public and private (surveyors, deputy sheriffs serving process or carrying out official duties, utility company workers, county assessor's employees), may have a statutory or common law privilege to enter onto private property that would otherwise be trespassing for a limited purpose. In other cases, the right may arise from recorded or statutory easement rights or from customer agreements. Such provisions are usually piecemeal. See, e.g., Colorado Revised Statutes § 18-4-515 (privilege for surveyors to trespass under certain circumstances).
The answer does ultimately reduce to the specifics of local law, which could be state, county or city. Ordinarily, the person who acted negligently would bear some element of responsibility for his actions, but local states can change that. The person did not intentionally provoke the dog, he was negligent, and they are not the same thing. So you need to get an attorney to take care of your particular problem. Municipalities are typically intolerant of dogs that bite humans. In Washington, the owner is strictly liable for any damage caused by a dog biting a human, except in the case of a person illegally trespassing, or when the attack was provoked. A dog can then be declared to be dangerous, which can have significant insurance consequences, or worse.
This is related to Can a store sell merchandise I&#39;ve left in the store? The phone in question has been mislaid and anyone who finds it has a duty to deliver it to the owner of the bench for safekeeping pending the true owner's return: if the owner does not return within a reasonable time the phone becomes the property of the bench owner (e.g. the city that owns the park). However, the specific question here is: Where the owner has returned within a reasonable time but the possessor of the phone is now clearly attempting to steal it. Most jurisdictions recognise that a person is entitled to use reasonable force to defend their life or property. For example, the law in Australia1, is generally case law for which the authority is the High Court's decision in Zecevic v DPP (1987) 162 CLR 645: The question to be asked in the end is quite simple. It is whether the accused believed upon reasonable grounds that it was necessary in self-defence to do what he did. If he had that belief and there were reasonable grounds for it, or if the jury is left in reasonable doubt about the matter, then he is entitled to an acquittal. Stated in this form, the question is one of general application and is not limited to cases of homicide. So, you are entitled to do "what you believe upon reasonable grounds that it was necessary to do" to defend your property. This would include using physical force to stop their flight and return your property to your possession: it would not include force that posed real and foreseeable risk of inflicting death or grievous bodily harm upon them. In addition, because you have reasonable grounds to believe that they have committed a crime, you are allowed to arrest them and deliver them to lawful custody (i.e. a police officer). Naturally, if you do not have reasonable grounds them you have just kidnapped them. The consequences if you do injure them is that you can be charged with a crime (battery, grievous bodily harm, manslaughter, murder etc.) and/or be sued for damages (medical bills, lost wages etc.) in both cases you could use self-defence as a defence. The difference between self-defence and vigilante justice is one is legal and the other isn't
No one can tell you how the facts are going to line up if you get sued. The attractive nuisance doctrine is alive and you can be found liable if you have, on your property, a dangerous condition which is attractive to children, especially if the danger is not appreciable to the child. Now, I'm a bit skeptical that a child would climb a fence to kick snow, especially if there is other snow outside the fence for them to kick, but stranger things have happened. What can you do? These are ideas, I don't think they are legal advice. Start with the premise that dangerous stuff happens everyday, and kids aren't getting hurt by most of it. Use a fence with barbed wire. In other words, injured the the child with a lesser injury to reduce your liability. Use an opaque fence. Granted, curiosity might be too great and a child will trespass to discover what you are hiding. Use a shed, just one of those thin aluminum structures. Include proximity sensors to set off alarms and lights and whatever. Get your project away from kids; find space in a commercial area.
No A tenant cannot acquire adverse possession. As describe in the LII Article on &quot;Adverse Possesion&quot;, one of the requirements for establishing adverse possession is that possession must be: Hostile--In this context, &quot;hostile&quot; does not mean &quot;unfriendly.&quot; Rather, it means that the possession infringes on the rights of the true owner. If the true owner consents or gives license to the adverse possessor's use of the property, possession is not hostile and it is not really adverse possession. Renters cannot be adverse possessors of the rented property, regardless of how long they possess it. (My emphasis) This is the classic common law rule. The Justia article on the topic says: The occupation must be hostile and adverse to the interests of the true owner. If a landowner has given a person permission to use the property, the possession is not considered hostile. However, a landowner is not required to have actual knowledge of the occupation, so long as the occupation is adverse to the owner's property interests. For example, a landowner may be unaware that his neighbor's fence extends several feet over his property line. The occupation is sufficiently hostile, however, because the landowner has not given his neighbor permission to encroach upon his property in this manner. The Nolo article on this topic says: Adverse Possession Requires a Hostile Claim The word &quot;hostile&quot; doesn't mean that the trespasser rides in on a horse with six-shooters blazing. Instead, courts follow one of three legal definitions of &quot;hostile&quot; when it comes to adverse possession. Simple occupation. This rule (followed by most states today) defines &quot;hostile&quot; as the mere occupation of the land. The trespasser doesn't have to know that the land belongs to someone else. Awareness of trespassing. This rule requires that the trespasser be cognizant that his or her use of the property amounts to trespassing (meaning the trespasser has no legal right to be on the property). Good faith mistake. A few states follow this rule, which requires the trespasser to have made an innocent good faith mistake in occupying the property in the first place, such as by relying on an invalid or incorrect deed. The Wikipedia article says: In general, a property owner has the right to recover possession of their property from unauthorised possessors through legal action such as ejectment. However, in the English common law tradition, courts have long ruled that when someone occupies a piece of property without permission and the property's owner does not exercise their right to recover their property for a significant period of time, not only is the original owner prevented from exercising their right to exclude, but an entirely new title to the property &quot;springs up&quot; in the adverse possessor. In effect, the adverse possessor becomes the property's new owner. .... Although the elements of an adverse possession action are different in every jurisdiction, a person claiming adverse possession is usually required to prove non-permissive use of the property that is actual, open and notorious, exclusive, adverse and continuous for the statutory period .... Renters, hunters or others who enter the land with permission are not taking possession that is hostile to the title owner's rights.
Damaging someone else's property is not protected free speech in the US. Nor is using someone else's property without permission and against the owner's wishes. Scenario 3 would surely be vandalism or &quot;Malicious Mischief&quot; or some similar offense, even if the paint can be fairly easily removed. The same would be petty surely true of scenario 2, as it would take at least some effort to remove the sticker, and it could be a safety hazard until it is removed (obstructed vision). Scenario 1 would probably not be even a minor crime, unless perhaps the person trespassed to attach the string. But the person has no right to insist that the car's owner not remove the sign. I am assuming that the car is owned by someone else, and the the person placing the sign, sticker or paint acted without permission from the owner or any authorized person.
No, the minor cannot be in violation either being on the property of residence or the sidewalk in front of that property. Montgomery County Curfew Law: Section 1-2 (Offenses): (a) A minor commits an offense if he remains in any public place or on the premises of any establishment within the unincorporated areas of the county during curfew hours. Section 1-3 (Defenses): (a) It is a defense to prosecution under Section 1-2 that the minor was: (1) Accompanied by the minor’s parent or guardian; (2) On an errand at the direction of the minor’s parent or guardian, without any detour or stop; (3) In a motor vehicle involved in interstate travel; (4) Engaged in an employment activity, or going to or returning home from an employment &gt;activity, without any detour or stop; (5) Involved in an emergency; (6) On the sidewalk abutting the minor’s residence or abutting the residence of a next-door neighbor if the neighbor did not complain to the police department about the minor’s presence; (7) Attending an official school, religious, or other recreational activity supervised by adults and sponsored by Montgomery County, a civic organization, or another similar entity that takes responsibility for the minor, or going to or returning home from, without any detour or stop, an official school, religious, or other recreational activity supervised by adults and sponsored by Montgomery County, a civic organization, or another similar entity that takes responsibility for the minor; (8) Exercising First Amendment rights protected by the United States Constitution, such &gt;as the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, and the right of assembly; and (9) Married, had been married, or had disabilities of minority removed in accordance with Chapter 31 of the Texas Family Code. (b) It is a defense to prosecution under Section 1-2 (c) that the owner, operator, or employee of an establishment promptly notified the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Department, or the appropriate Constable’s office, that a minor was present on the premises of the establishment during curfew hours and refused to leave. Your property is not public, so you cannot be in offense of this ordinance being on your private property. You also cannot be in violation being on your sidewalk (or a neighbors sidewalk if that neighbor has not called police on the offender).
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.