The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,429 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I have a friend whose family has about 70 acres up in Sullivan County, and they do not post it. They claim if you post your land, and someone trespasses and gets hurt, you become liable? I said I didn't think so but he claims that was what he was told. It sounds to me like they are confusing some laws, or somebody is <span style="font-style: italic">lying to </span>them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,480 Posts
I,ve heard that too and think it is bunk.Just scare tactics that,s all.Just because it isn,t posted doesn,t give the low life thinkin they can go where they want.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Found this on a google search remember reading about when the bill was signed

http://www.mcall.com/sports/outdoors/all-bergcolumn0703.5923032ju ...


Landowner liability protection major victory for hunters
Christian Berg Outdoors
Pennsylvania sportsmen scored a major political victory over the weekend when Gov. Ed Rendell signed into law legislation that protects property owners who allow hunting on their land.

The new law, formerly known as House Bill 13, makes it clear that landowners cannot be held responsible for personal injuries or property damages caused by hunters allowed on their properties -- so long as no access fee is charged.

*Results not projectable Rendell's signature on Saturday completed a clean sweep for the measure, which passed the Senate 50-0 last week and earlier sailed through the House by a 199-0 vote -- demonstrating tremendous, bi-partisan support for Pennsylvania's hunting heritage.

Passage of the legislation should bring a big sigh of relief to landowners, many of whom had posted their properties or eliminated hunting in the wake of the high-profile Casey Burns civil lawsuit, a local case.

''The fear of landowners about liability was grounded in reality. What we had to do was change that reality by providing them liability protection,'' said Rep. Harry Readshaw, D-Allegheny, who introduced the bill. ''Without our action, this situation would have amounted to a train wreck for hunters and financial ruin for the many businesses that rely on Pennsylvania hunters and visitors from out of state for much of their income.''

House Bill 13 was championed by sportsmen's groups across the state, and many hunters are hopeful that properties closed in response to the Burns case will open again.

''This is a major victory for hunters and landowners,'' said hunter Anthony Ezolt of Richmond Township, Berks County, who lost access to a prime farm in northern Lehigh County as a result of the Burns case. ''I just hope it takes away enough of the sting from a lawsuit that shouldn't have turned out the way it did, no matter what the law.''

Adoption of the legislation also was praised by the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau, which warned that thousands more acres would be posted if action wasn't taken by the time hunting seasons roll around in the fall.

Likewise, Pennsylvania Game Commission officials praised the Legislature's swift action to address the liability issue. Although the commission offers public hunting on 1.4 million acres of state game lands, that's a relatively small area compared to the 4.4 million acres of private land enrolled in the agency's various public access programs.

The Legislature's action should eliminate the potential for a repeat of the Burns suit, in which a Lehigh County jury found North Whitehall orchard owner Daniel Haas partly liable for a November 2004 accident caused by hunter Craig Wetzel, who fired a rifle bullet that missed its target, traveled more than half a mile and struck Burns in the head outside her home.

Wetzel pleaded guilty to criminal charges related to the shooting -- receiving six months probation, $5,500 in fines and restitution and a five-year suspension of his hunting license. Burns later sued both Wetzel and Haas, and the jury found Wetzel 90 percent liable and Haas 10 percent liable.

This February, Haas agreed to a financial settlement with Burns to avoid the possibility of an even higher jury award during the damages phase of the trial.

The Burns case was a shock to many people who had long assumed the state's Recreational Use of Land and Water Act protected property owners. The act, adopted in 1965, was created to limit landowner liability as a way to encourage them to open their properties for various forms of public recreation, including hunting, fishing, swimming, hiking, camping and boating.

Although the Recreation Act was never brought up in the Burns case, some legal experts believe the lawsuit exposed a loophole in the law, which does not specifically offer liability protection in instances where property damage or personal injuries occur off landowners' properties.

House Bill 13 changed that by amending the Recreation Act and making it clear landowners do not ''assume responsibility for or incur liability for any injury to persons or property, wherever such persons or property are located, caused while hunting.''

As Sen. Lisa M. Boscola, D-Northampton, said last week before voting for the bill: ''The landowner should not be responsible. The person who…pulled the trigger should be.''

[email protected]
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,774 Posts
wildatheart said:
I have a friend whose family has about 70 acres up in Sullivan County, and they do not post it. They claim if you post your land, and someone trespasses and gets hurt, you become liable? I said I didn't think so but he claims that was what he was told. It sounds to me like they are confusing some laws, or somebody is lying to them.
Your friend is actually correct on the bases of keeping his land open to public use.

You are more liable when some is hurt through any form of landowner negligence on land not open to the public than you are if your land is open to the public, thanks to the re-writing and passage of the Recreation Act a few years ago.

Dick Bodenhorn
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Does the new amended law still hold land owners that lease (accept payment) liable for actions of hunters on their land as the old law did not cover them
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,429 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Your friend is actually correct on the bases of keeping his land open to public use.

You are more liable when some is hurt through any form of landowner negligence on land not open to the public than you are if your land is open to the public, thanks to the re-writing and passage of the Recreation Act a few years ago.

Dick Bodenhorn
So are you saying if he posts his land and someone trespasses and gets hurt, he is still liable? Confused by your answer, sorry.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,190 Posts
a friend of mine was sued by a theif once. broke into his barn and fell into a hole in the floor we all knew was there. in this world anyone can sue for anything! what a shame what it turned into
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
190 Posts
If you put a (Beware of Dog sign) on your land and someone is bitten by your dog, you are liable because you knew your dog would bite by stating so with the sign, there for it is going to cost you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,790 Posts
I have a small track leased and i had the lease drawn up by a Pa. attorney. For a piece of mind i agreed not to hold owner liable for: gun shot, blown limb, snake bite, many more. Wanted to give owner a peice of mind.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
The new law, formerly known as House Bill 13, makes it clear that landowners cannot be held responsible for personal injuries or property damages caused by hunters allowed on their properties -- so long as no access fee is charged.
from the way this reads you lease you loose you jave no protection under the law
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,551 Posts
Negligence is the key word there. Burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove negligence.

Keep voting for these "what's yours is everyones" politicians and it will get worse.

I post my land to keep fools off of it, but posting is not always "fool" proof.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top