In the US, can a manufacturer enforce how their products are used? Petzl (a company manufacturing outdoors equipment) has the following statement on their website: Self-belaying is prohibited! We cannot ignore the fact that some people use the GRIGRI as a self-belay device. Many internet sites give tips on modifying your device for this use. Above all, this technique increases the risks to the climber. Firstly, the climber does not hold the brake side of the rope. Additionally, in case of a fall ,the GRIGRI can be blocked against the rock, the positioning system (positioning strap), or other, thus negating its braking function. The climber could fall to the ground. Finally, remember that any product modification outside of Petzl facilities is formally prohibited (see Instructions for Use). Self-belaying with the GRIGRI is prohibited. Are these provisions actually enforceable, in accordance to US law? If it matters, Petzl products are sold in regular stores that don't require customers to sign an explicit waiver before making a purchase.
No It's your device, you can do what you like with it (subject to the law - you can't hit people with it. Unless they want to be hit: whatever turns you on, turns you on). However, if you do operate it outside their instructions then they would not be legally liable if it failed and injured you or someone else or set fire to the cat or whatever. The "prohibition" would limit their legal liability.
australia There are likely several offences under the Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901. Under s4 it is unlawful to enter into inclosed lands (which includes all buildings) without the consent of the owner or controller. The balloon releasers did not have explicit permission and entering with the intent to disrupt means they cannot rely upon implied permission. s4B makes this an aggravated offence if the intention for entering is to disrupt any business or undertaking taking place on the inclosed lands. Because there were 3 or more people involved, the maximum penalty is 200 penalty units (currently $22,000) or 3 years. In addition, the occupiers could seek damages under the torts of trespass or nuisance.
It would seem that the law involved is probably Section 58-17-4096 of the South Carolina Code of Laws, Title 58. This is part of the General Railroad Law of SC (GRL), and apparently was last revised in 1996. Section 58-17-4096 reads, in full: (A) It is unlawful, without proper authority, for a person to trespass upon railroad tracks. (B) A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than two hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than thirty days. Note that the section does not specifically define &quot;proper authority&quot; nor &quot;trespass&quot; (nor do the definition sections at the start of the GRL), so those terms should have their ordinary meanings. It might be argued that the landowner has &quot;proper authority&quot;. It is interstice to contrast this with the previous section, SC Code § 58-17-4095 (2012) which gives a rather detailed list of who is authorized to &quot;park or operate a vehicle on a railroad right-of-way&quot;. Persons authorized are: an employee of the railroad ... in the performance of his duties [one who] has authority from the railroad [one who] is using a public or private roadway which crosses over the railroad ... [one who] is acting in an official capacity with the military, police force, a fire fighting organization, or some similar public authority ... which crosses over the railroad ... [one who] is an employee of a public utility or telecommunications carrier, or of the forestry industry ... The question asks: Can a law that effectively bars a property owner from access to their property be enforced or does the constitution protect the property owner’s rights and thus make them exempt from such a state law? There is no such absolute right of access by the owner specified in the US Federal Constitution. As the comments by Nate Eldredge suggest, the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment might be relevant, but that would have (or should have) been applied when the railroad lines were put in, and if proper compensation was paid at that tiem to the then landowner, future ownership would include the restrictions then imposed. Any easement should be recorded on the actual deed to the property, but a tract map would not normally show it. Moreover, it is possible that the railroad was put in before the fourteenth amendment made the takings clause applicable to the states, or before this incorporation was recognized in Chicago, Burlington &amp; Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897). Even so, an easement might have been obtained by private agreement between the railroad and the owner of the land at that time. In the &quot;Interactive Constitution&quot; article &quot;The Fifth Amendment Takings Clause&quot; by Richard A. Epstein and Eduardo M. Peñalver (both noted professors of law) it is said that: ... The Clause also applies, not only to the confiscation of all existing interests in any individual piece of property, but to the confiscation of certain lesser interests in property. Under Anglo-American law, these would include recognized interests like easements (such as rights of way), leases, mortgages, life estates, and remainders. ... ... Any time some private party could seek a court order stopping another private party from engaging in harmful activities, the government can impose the same limitations through fines and court orders without a duty to compensate. A law or regulation authorized by law may bar access by a landowner to a part of a property in proper cases. For example if the land is environmentally sensitive, or if there is a dangerous condition, such as old ordnance on a former proving ground or battlefield. Such a law would probably be a partial taking, and require appropriate compensation, depending on the exact circumstances The answer by Greendrake which says: the only theoretically possible case of trespassing here is that of trespass to chattels, but that is a tort, not a crime. There can be no charges, only claims. is incorrect because of Section 58-17-4096, which specifically makes such trespass a misdemeanor punishable by fine or imprisonment. However, in Faulkenberry v. Norfolk Southern(Opinion No. 25454, Opinion Filed April 29, 2002) the South Carolina Supreme Court found that a railroad claiming under an 1845 charter which authorized it to purchase land, and force such purchases, had acquired only an easement, not a title in fee simple. The opinion by Justice Waller refers to and quotes the SC 1845 Act No. 2953 which granted powers of acquisition to the railroad, and mentions other similar acts of the same era granting such powers to other railroads. The opinion also cites the SC 1868 Act No. 43, 7, which explicitly limits such railroad tenures. The Justice wrote: The circuit court, pursuant to numerous cases of this Court, held Railroad acquired only an easement to use the tracks, rather than a fee simple determinable, and that, in any event, Faulkenberry was entitled to an easement by necessity. ... In Ragsdale v. Southern Ry. Co., 60 S.C. 381, 38 S.E. 609 (1901), the Court construed a Charter to the Spartanburg and Union Railroad which had provisions identical to those of sections 9, 10 and 11 above. The Court noted that, under sections 9 and 10, the Legislature had specifically provided that land taken by and paid for by the railroad would vest in fee simple. However, the Court noted that no such words were used in section 11, which provided only that the company shall have &quot;good right and title. . . so long as the same may be used only for the purpose of said road.&quot; The Ragsdale Court, after citing Justice Wardlaw's dissent in Lewis, concluded: [t]he legislature wisely made a distinction in the tenure by which the railroad company held the land when it was under one or the other of said sections. Having reached the conclusion that the rights of the parties are different under the foregoing sections, . . . [o]ur interpretation of the foregoing sections is that the railroad company acquired only a right of way over the land described in the complaint. ... We adhere to the wealth of authority in this state and hold the 1845 Charter created only an easement in Railroad, such that Faulkenberry is entitled to use the disputed crossing. We note, however, that although Faulkenberry may cross the railroad tracks, he may not do anything which would unreasonably interfere with Railroad's use of its easement. Marion County Lumber Co. v. Tilghman Lumber Co., 75 S.C. 220, 55 S.E. 337 (1906) (owner of the dominant estate cannot materially interfere with use and enjoyment of servient estate's easement; owners must be held during continuance of easement to have abandoned every use of the land except such as might be made consistent with the reasonable enjoyment of the easement). See also Brown v. Gaskins, 284 S.C. 30, 33, 324 S.E.2d 639, 640 (Ct.App.1984). ( A footnote to the opinion mentions that: The circuit court ruled that, in any event, Faulkenberry was entitled to an easement by necessity to cross the railroad tracks. In light of our holding, we need not address this alternate ruling. Note that in the Faulkenberry case there was apparently a road crossing the tracks, although not an authorized crossing. The doctrine of an easement by necessity might apply in the case described in the question. Detailed legal advice would be needed to determine this, and quite probably a court case.
Typically, these notices are required where the individual packaging lacks the statutory nutritional and warning labels. If this is the reason for the prohibition, selling them separately is a breach of public health law. It may also be a breach of contract with the vendor of the collective pack. Breaking them up and placing them in vending machines, even if those are not accessible to the public is probably unlawful.
In general property owners and employers can impose any rules on their property and employees (respectively) that are not prohibited by law. Granted, there are extensive statutes and regulations to protect "employee rights." I have not heard of protections that include "possession of prescribed medications," but that does not mean they don't exist in your jurisdiction. If you really want to know whether you have a legal right as an employee, and you can't find it in written law or regulation, you would have to consult regulators or employment law attorneys in your jurisdiction. (As a practical matter, of course, it might make sense to first find out whether one's employer wants to assert a policy infringing the right in question.)
The UK has particularly strong (indirect) restrictions on self defense. Askthe.police.uk appears to be an official police agency. As a police agency, they can only give their version of what the law is, but they could be mistaken. They say "The only fully legal self defence product at the moment is a rape alarm". This by itself does not mean that pepper spray and the like are definitively illegal: There are other self defence products which claim to be legal (e.g. non toxic sprays), however, until a test case is brought before the court, we cannot confirm their legality or endorse them. If you purchase one you must be aware that if you are stopped by the police and have it in your possession there is always a possibility that you will be arrested and detained until the product, it's contents and legality can be verified. One can infer that they somewhat disapprove of pepper spray: There are products which squirt a relatively safe, brightly coloured dye (as opposed to a pepper spray). A properly designed product of this nature, used in the way it is intended, should not be able to cause an injury. The underlying theory seems to be that the dye will frighten the assailant so it might be useful. Nevertheless, they do not fully endorse spray dye: However, be aware that even a seemingly safe product, deliberately aimed and sprayed in someone's eyes, would become an offensive weapon because it would be used in a way that was intended to cause injury. This underscores the point that "intent" determines the criminal nature of the act. If you accidentally spray a dye into someone's eyes, that probably would not make the thing an offensive weapon. Moreover, if at the moment of defending yourself with dye you intentionally spray it into someone eyes, that does not make it an offensive weapon (see below on per se offensive weapons). The difference between pepper spray and dye lies in the outcome that you expect, that pepper spray will cause actual and non-trivial physical discomfort, and it's foreseeability (the point of having pepper spray is to injure). The police are not making any definitive "rulings" (only a court can make a ruling), and they warn The above advice is given in good faith, you must make your own decision and this website cannot be held responsible for the consequences of the possession, use or misuse of any self defence product. Possession of other weapons (mostly knives, also weapons for beating people) is more clearly illegal, due to numerous acts enacted by Parliament over the years. The gov't. prosecutor offers useful details on their (current) policies and the underlying laws. The underlying authority for these restrictions seems to be the Prevention of Crime Act, 1953, which outlaws having an offensive weapon in a public place, and an offense weapon is simply defined as any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him A brick or an egg could be an "offensive weapon", if a person intends to use it to cause injury. It is more difficult to see how an egg could cause injury, but actual injury is not required under the law, only intent to injure. It is thus a bit surprising that the police would be so bold as to say that a "rape alarm" is fully legal, but this may refer to a specific thing, the "Personal Guardian", which silently notifies the police, and is not a loud whistle (which could injure a person). Intent being crucial to the determination of "offensive weapon" status, CPS points out that where a person uses an article offensively in a public place, the offensive use of the article is not conclusive of the question whether he had it with him as an offensive weapon within section 1(1) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. If you use a chain or stick offensively, that does not establish that you had it with you as an offensive weapon. You crucially had to previously intend to use it as an offensive weapon: as they say: Having an article innocently will be converted into having the article guiltily if an intent to use the article offensively is formed before the actual occasion to use violence has arisen. There are a number of per se offensive weapons: those made for causing injury to the person i.e. offensive per se. For examples of weapons that are offensive per se, see Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988, (Stones 8-22745) and case law decisions. (Archbold 24-116). The Criminal Justice Act (1988) (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment) Order 2008 came into force on 6th April 2008 with the effect that a sword with a curved blade of 50cm or more (samurai sword), has been added to the schedule to the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988 but sticks and chains would not be included. Spices are not likely to be shown to have a per se purpose of causing injury to others; but carrying pepper powder with the intent of throwing it in someone's eyes (for whatever reason) and thus injuring them fits the definition of "offensive weapon". Pepper spray even more clearly fits that definition (you don't use pepper spray in curry), and has resulted in arrests. In fact, the Firearms Act 1968 (S5) (b) specifically makes it illegal to possess any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other thing
The Law The relevant sections of the German Civil Code (BGB) for posession and protection of posession of movable things (not land) are (semi-official translation): Section 858 Unlawful interference with possession (1) A person who, against the will of the possessor, deprives the possessor of possession or interferes with the possessor’s possession acts, except where the deprivation or the interference is permitted by law, unlawfully (unlawful interference with possession). Section 859 Self-help by the possessor (1) The possessor may use force to defend himself against unlawful interference. (2) If a movable thing is taken away from the possessor by unlawful interference, the possessor may use force to remove it from the interferer who is caught in the act or pursued. The posessor (Besitzer) is the one who has the actual control of the thing (§ 854 I BGB), e.g. holds it in his/her hand. (There are also some more complex forms of posession, but they are not relevant here.) Ownership (Eigentum) is totally seperated of that. Often the owner posseses the thing, but also often the possessor is not the owner, but e.g. a tenant. If someone (e.g. a thief) takes away a thing from the posessor, the one acts in unlawful interference with possession (verbotene Eigenmacht, § 858 I BGB). While the thief tries to take the thing away, the posessor may use force to defend himself, § 859 I BGB. After the thief obtained actual control he/she is the new posessor. The old posessor ends to be the posessor. This only reflects on the factual situation, not on legitimacy. The old posessor now may use force to get the thing back from the new posessor (thief), if the thief is caught in the act or pursued, § 859 II BGB. It is controversial which time frame this implies. There is at least one judgement that accepts the discovery after 30 min. If the old posessor gets the (posession of the) thing back through force, he/she does not act in unlawful interference with possession, because it is explicitly allowed in § 859 II BGB. So the thief is not allowed to "steal back" although he/she was posessor (for a short time). If the old posessor acts too late, the new posessor has the full defense rights against force of the old posessor. The old posessor has to begin judical action. He/she has a right of restitution, § 861 BGB. Reasons One of the most important principles of (German) civil law is the Monopoly on violence of the state (Gewaltmonopol des Staates). Normaly only the state is allowed to use physical force (for the enforcement of the law). Only in special cases, e.g. a clear situation or the necessity of immediate action, the affected is allowed to use force for defense. In all other cases he/she has to go to court and in the end let the state use force for him/her. After a theft there are two people claiming to be the legitime posessor and one who has the thing. No one knows (without further investigation) who is right. So everything should stay as it is until a court decides. If a thief is caught in the act or pursued, the situation is much more clear. So the old posessor may use force and has not to wait for a court. If the thougth thief is the legitime posessor, this may be clarified by the courts afterwards. source: Hanns Prütting: Sachenrecht, 2017, § 13 Every German law student learns this in his second year. So there is plenty of teaching literature (and probably websites) on this topic.
germany Bob through his actions is harming Alice. Thus Eve may use the minimum necessary force to help Alice as Nothilfe, which is defined as using §32 StGB (Self protection/Notwehr) and §34 StGB (justifying state of emergency/Rechtfertigender Notstand). As a result, it is allowed to harm someone to the degree of self protection for the benefit of someone else that can't protect themselves - such as Alice. However, the amount of force allowed must be proportional to the harm done to Alice - so Eve may use the least needed amount of force to get Bob from stopping Eve from helping Alice. As an example, Eve might shove Bob out of the way, hit him, or use the threat of serious harm (which is usually illegal!) to deter Bob from getting in the way, but unless Alice is actually at risk of dying from Bob keeping her from applying pressure on a lacerated artery this very moment, she can't shoot at Bob - that would overstep the Notwehr, but might not be punished if the overstepping is for the right reasons defined in §33 StGB. Bob also is liable for not rendering aid, §323c StGB unterlassene Hilfeleistung/Behinderung von hilfeleistenden Personen (Failure to provide assistance/hindering persons providing assistance).