Will Signage Prevent Suing?

[street]

I'm hoping there maybe someone here that has some knowledge of law about signage for protection from the public and trespasser etc.

For example will a No Trespassing, No Hunting signage prevent the public from suing you?

 

[Newventurer]

Nothing prevents someone from suing you.

Them winning, is dependent on the facts of their case against you.

An example - you own a pool, you have a no diving sign, you allow the water to become murky, someone dives in and busts their head, you might be liable because they couldn’t judge the depth due to poor water clarity.

Or, you own property, crossing your property is the closest way to get to the river, there are well worn tire tracks from many people using the shortcut across your property, you know this and don’t put up a fence or other method of blocking the traffic. You’re out shooting one day on your property and hit someone taking the shortcut. You might be liable.

Or, you own an apartment building, you have signs in the parking lot that say ‘property under surveillance’ you have a camera but it is not monitored, an occupant of your complex is mugged in the parking lot, you gave them a false sense of security, you might be liable.

Reasonable care needs to be used in most cases

 

[street]

^ That is what I thought. I would imagine signage would help to inform the public but not a tool to prevent suing.

So why would you want to put signage up at all?

 

[Souschef]

We have been watching "North Woods Law" on TV where the game wardens deal with people trespassing and hunting on posted property.
IMO, I would post the property.

 

[Newventurer]

^ That is what I thought. I would imagine signage would help to inform the public but not a tool to prevent suing.

So why would you want to put signage up at all?

Posting is the first line of defense, however if you have unsafe conditions that you are aware of (say an unsafe bridge), and enticements (that river as an example) that draw interest it may be your responsibility to foresee that even trespassers could be injured or have their property damaged.

Of course trespassers are notorious for removing signs and saying they didn’t know

From the web: https://www.mullenandmullen.com/slip-fall-premises-liability/do-posted-signs-prevent-suing-injury/

 

[H2ODude]

The one that bugs me is trucks with the sign that says "Stay behind 300 ft. Not responsible for broken windshields." Like that absolves them of sprinkling stones out the back on everyone.

 

[Texas Proud]

The one that bugs me is trucks with the sign that says "Stay behind 300 ft. Not responsible for broken windshields." Like that absolves them of sprinkling stones out the back on everyone.

But..... your state might have passed a law saying they are not... I believe Texas did...


My pilot seems to be a stone magnet... have had 5 of them hit with star cracks... even sealed you can still see them easily...

 

[CardsFan]

The one that bugs me is trucks with the sign that says "Stay behind 300 ft. Not responsible for broken windshields." Like that absolves them of sprinkling stones out the back on everyone.

And you need to be within 100 feet just read the sign

 

[OldShooter]

Nothing prevents someone from suing you. ...

True, but there is a subtelty: Unless you have deep pockets or large insurance, it is not worthwhile to for someone to spend the money to sue. This is especially true for PI lawyers with contingent fees; those greedy illegitimate children want a fat corporate target. Their objective is to extort a settlement that is less than the corporation thinks it might spend in defending itself.

But when they sue, they sue everybody. Corporations, individuals, etc. it doesn't matter. So it is important to have insurance that will pay your legal fees.

And the first thing they do, permitted by law, is to make a wallet check to find out how much insurance you have. To see if you are worth their while.

 

[candrew]

Not necessarily when it comes to the doctrine of "attractive nuisance" as it applies to minor children.

An owner of land could be liable for injuries to a child if the owner should have:
1. anticipated the presence of a child, and
2. failed to take reasonable measures to prevent a likely injury.

As other posters have noted, this could apply to any number of potential hazards that might attract the curiosity of a child, i.e., a trampoline, swimming pool, dogs, etc.

 

[OldShooter]

Not necessarily when it comes to the doctrine of "attractive nuisance" ...

Years ago my wife worked for a guy who (really) had big cats. I remember visiting his house for a company party one time and the basement was all cages with outside runs. IIRC a couple of tigers and some cheetahs that were almost house pets. He bought and butchered old horses in his barn to feed them.

He posted his property with signs warning: "Trespassers will be Eaten" The county convinced him to take them down.

 

[MrsHaloFIRE]

I sat a handful of law classes in school so Id like to weigh in with my expertise HAHAHA. We were told people believe what they read, that's why you see signs like "no lifeguard on duty, hotel not liable for injury." Bottom line is it is what the court decides. Signs atleast give people pause on suing. And then they teach you about all the cases where someone breaks into a house via the chimney, gets trapped, eventually gets rescued, and sues the home owner for pain, suffering, injury, kidnapping and WINS!!!

 

[Car-Guy]

I have several no trespassing signs on my fences and on my only entry gate. I do have a long stretch of open land without a fence so I just painted a purple strip on a post every 1000', which in Texas is the same a no trespassing sign. I also have signage such as "protected by Smith and Wesson" in a couple of places. If that doesn't keep folks out and they try to sue me for some reason, I have an umbrella policy. However, I live in Texas, and I seriously doubt that a Texas jury would be very sympathetic to anyone "STUPID" enough to set foot on such property, much less trying to sue for some reason.

 

[kgtest]

One sign I can think of is 'This premise bans guns'. I learned that even with the ban sign, if you were in a situation where you had to use your conceal carry, had ignored the sign but saved the day, that there is a chance you won't be held liable. But in any regards, best to run from the fire, not into it.


Same situation, without a threat. Gun goes off unknowingly, you will definitely be held accountable.



Now this is odd because, I understand state/local/federal legislature supports this particular signage but could be wrong.

 

[Car-Guy]

Speaking of gun signage, here's a sign outside of one of the local BBQ restaurants. (In Texas of course) Good BBQ too!

 

[Clone]

Finally got a picture of a sign that I mentioned in a different thread.

 

[Rustic23]

It's been a real long time since I took Business Law, but I remember the professor making a point that a sign in a parking garage, or printed on the ticket absolving liability was not sufficient. The attendant had to point to the sign or ticket and tell you. That was part of something called Universal Code or Law or torts. Don't have a clue if it still holds true. The gist was a sign was not enough.

 

[street]

Thanks for all your input.