Growing hot chilis in private but accessible garden I own a few acres of land in a community garden were I plan to grow some of the hottest chilis in the world. The community garden is clearly marked as private property and fenced in. However the gates are not locked and can be opened by anyone. As a matter of fact the community garden plots are near a popular hiking and jogging track and it is a well known &quot;secret&quot; that random people regularly walk through the gardens - which is not a big deal. However it is sadly also known that a good amount of people seem to think we dont mind if you pick an apple or two, some strawberries or whatever - this is a whole different topic. The chilis I am growing - in terms of hotness - can cause damage to ones health (sensitive body parts like eyes, heart attacks, ...) if handled improperly. According to the description above it seems to me that the trespassers that are just walking through can be considered innocent without criminal intent and in that role will also not be affected by the chilis. As far as I know it is also not an &quot;attractive nuisance&quot; for animals (chili plants evolved to be a literal unattractive nuisance) or children (fruits, vegetables and so on are not a primary target) running around unaccompanied. Which leaves me with the people stealing fruits from my garden. Is picking fruits/vegetables from private property already enough to be considered criminal intent which would mean I am not liable? While my location is Switzerland I think this might also be interesting for other countries. Therefore some common law or US interpration would also be interesting to hear.
At common law and in the majority rule in U.S. law, the obligation one owes to a trespasser or thief is to refrain from setting deadly traps. In this case, where the product is not inherently dangerous, it probably wouldn't count as a deadly trap, but best practices would be to post a conspicuous sign along the lines of &quot;warning: consumption of these peppers could cause deadly health complications&quot; near the peppers and to document (e.g. with a dated photograph) that this was done. The bigger liability would not be to a trespasser, but to someone in the next plot over which accidentally mistakes a ghost pepper for the cool Bell pepper that they put in their own plot, especially if the harm if foreseeable because the person planting the hot pepper knows that a frail elderly person with poor vision maintains the next plot over and grows similar looking peppers.
There appears to be no "oppressive child labor" occurring and therefore no breach of labor laws. The definition of oppressive child labor expressly excludes employment by "a parent or a person standing in place of a parent" except in identified hazardous occupations; gardening not being one of those. Notwithstanding, schooling in California is compulsory between the ages of 6 and 18 subject to a number of exemptions which the person concerned may or may not have. If you are concerned about this you should contact the Department of Education.
I don't know what you mean by "own a person's DNA", but analogous to owning a car or picture, you can't own a person, which is what would be required to have complete ownership of all of a person's DNA. You can legally own a sample of a person's DNA, for example by buying or bartering tissue, or if you are given tissue. If you grab a handful of hair from a person and pull it out, it is not legally yours, and you can be required to return it. If you lose, misplace or abandon tissue (or a knife), then the finder could end up owning it, depending on the circumstances. Tissue in the trash is more complicated since there may be municipal laws preventing dumpster-diving. Setting aside any such municipal codes, if you abandon your property, someone else can claim it. Hair on the floor of a barbershop, or in the trash, is a good example abandonment: it could also be an example of trespassing, in case the barber objects to you gathering samples from his floor. The 4th Amendment cannot be used to secure your DNA: it could be used to prevent securing DNA, if the intended application is compelled blood drawing. The ruling in Maryland v. King did not say that "your DNA can be taken and entered into a national database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason", since that was an objection to the majority ruling given in the dissent, not part of the actual ruling. Maybe that will end up being true, but that hasn't been determined to be the law yet. With a warrant, the police can take a tissue sample, and not wait for you to throw a tissue sample in the trash. They can also take a cheek swab from an arrestee just like they can take a photo or fingerprints (that's what Maryland v. King says). Once we've settled the matter of obtaining a DNA sample, the concept of ownership might be relevant if a party could restrict others from using that DNA pattern. But DNA is not subject to patent or copyright, so once I know your DNA pattern, you cannot legally prevent me from using that information. However, you might, if I gave you a sample as part of a contract, and there is a clause in that contract that prevents the other party from ever using that information.
A private venue normally has discretion over who may attend their premises, as long as it is not because of membership in a protected class under anti-discrimination law. Note that the communication, as quoted, did not say that the banned person was a threat, but only that one of the performers felt uncomfortable. I do not think that the banned person has any legal recourse, unless they can plausibly assert that this is a case of unlawful discrimination, which the question does not suggest.
Actually, neither the council nor a private owner are responsible for illegal actions by unauthorised people on their property. This is obvious: if an intruder enters your property and, while there, shoots someone you cannot be held responsible. However ... Since you have made them aware that there are intruders on their property acting illegally and causing a nuisance to the neighbours and they have done nothing they are quite likely negligent, even recklessly negligent. Rather than sue them, consult a lawyer and get them to write a letter that if they do not take action by X date you are going to sue them.
There is, as far as I can see, no legal definition of picnic in England and Wales. In the absence of such, the convention applied by the UK courts is to use the normal meaning of the word; usually by reference to the Oxford English Dictionary (which is behind a paywall so I've used its free online version here)... An occasion when a packed meal is eaten outdoors, especially during an outing to the countryside. (My emphasis)
There appears to also be bribery of local officials as well. Not to mention, He operates with impugnity out of "The North Pole" which is I believe a TRADEMARK of a certain (now aging) USA male porn actor. I'm SO guessing that Santa is gonna appear out of nowhere, when the arctic oil drilling rights are being carved out among the abutter nations...and he's going to sit his fat tuchie all over those rights. Yaw, biotches! SANTA be in da hous! EDIT: it's almost certain that if Santa delivered a "My Little Pony" doll to little Elise in Akron, Ohio, USA...he violated a bevvy of Bern convention laws around intellectual property. Come to think of it..."Santa" is somewhat of a MODEL for "China" when it comes to IP law...
In the UK, no offence is committed, however many public locations cite the Data Protection Act 1998 as a reason to stop people taking pictures. DPA does not mention this topic at all, and is a red herring (however informing the location of this is unlikely to help, I have discovered) In fact, in the UK, the only laws that appear to exist cover either specific locations and properties (eg military installations) or using photography to take pictures of individuals in areas where they have an expectation of privacy. The Photographer's Rights Guide published by digitalcameraworld in 2012 is still current as far as I can see. It has this specific guidance: Photographers Rights: Taking Pictures of People in Public Are you breaking any law when you’re taking pictures of people in public? Probably not, but the position under UK law is uncertain. There are currently no general privacy laws under UK law, but the UK courts must take into account the European Convention on Human Rights, which gives everyone the right to respect for their private and family life. As this is an area of law that has been developing rapidly over the last few years, it is hard to be certain what will constitute an infringement. The key issue is whether the place the image is taken is one where a person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. For example, it has been suggested that the right of privacy of a child could be infringed by publishing a photo of them with their parents in a public street. It is therefore advisable to be careful when taking photos intended for publication, even where the subject matter is in a public place. Failure to obtain a model release for the use of an image will certainly make it harder to sell the picture to stock libraries. Photographing children The same laws apply to adult and child subjects, but a child does not have the legal capacity to consent and a parent or guardian must therefore do so on their behalf. Be aware that schools, leisure centres and places where children and adults gather usually have their own photography restrictions. Although decent photos of children (see our tips for better pictures of babies, children and teenagers) taken in a public place may be fine for non-commercial use, seek permission from the child’s parents or guardians and don’t shoot covertly with a long lens. For commercial images, you’ll need to get a model release signed by the parents. Also read the section on the powers of police and security guards.