Private Property and Tort

[StageRt]

After reading the posts on the closed 'Once Again...' thread I wanted to comment from my own experience.
Can an officer sit on private property and use radar? Yes.
Should they? Absolutely not.
Why? Well, according to my old Chief, the legal system does not permit the agency to save the property owner harmless from Liability.
What does this mean in lay terms?
Officer Radar is sitting in Joe Homeowners private drive running his/her radar. Skippy Speeder goes flying past the officer at 30 mph over the posted limit. Radar flips on his lights and siren and hits the gas to catch Skippy. So far, no foul.
Unbeknown to Officer Radar, Nellie Neighbor, a 4 year old has come on to Joe's property to visit her 4 year old friend, Judy Homeowner.
While getting underway, Officer Radar's car causes gravel to be spit out from beneath his tires. One stone strikes Nellie in the eye which results in the loss of sight in that eye.
Mr. and Mrs. Neighbor sue. Who do they sue? The police department and civil authority Officer Radar works for. They also sue Joe Homeowner and his wife. The car WAS on their property. The jury finds for Nellie and, although the city/county insurance pays their share, Joe's policy has a $100,000.00 limit on liability. Joe loses his house.
Anybody who doubts this scenario, legally, could take place hasn't been watching Tort Law for the last 50 years.
The Liability can attach whether the private property is a home owners or a business. In the case of a business, their Incorporation may also be in jeopardy. Corporations are, by law, set up to engage in a lawful business which is detailed in their Incorporation documents. Most do not include Law Enforcement in their legal descriptions. Allowing the L/E activity to take place on their property can result in a suit which COULD cause the corporation to be found in violation of their charter. The state can void the corporation and cause the owners to cease business.
Most of you think us oldsters didn't do things the way you do now because we were just stupid and didn't think of it. Believe me, we thought of it and there was a REASON (usually law related) we didn't do it.

[kels]

Aint opinions wonderful.

Now back to running radar in the ditch with the head lights turned off.

GOTCHA, press hard, four copies.....................

[mobrien316]

That's an excellent point. In order to get around that, in my town we used eminent domain to seize all private driveways within town limits.

Sure, there was some bitching from homeowners, but they'll thank us later if we ever kick up a piece of gravel while pulling out and it hits someone in the eye and that person sues them.

[StageRt]

That's an excellent point. In order to get around that, in my town we used eminent domain to seize all private driveways within town limits.

Sure, there was some bitching from homeowners, but they'll thank us later if we ever kick up a piece of gravel while pulling out and it hits someone in the eye and that person sues them.

I'll bet that cost them a pretty penny.

"Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954) is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that interpreted the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution."

How much was a driveway worth?

[StageRt]

Aint opinions wonderful.

Now back to running radar in the ditch with the head lights turned off.

GOTCHA, press hard, four copies.....................

I especially love them when they are issued by the USSC. Disregarding those can result in a charge of Misfeasance, either civilly, criminally, or both.
Now, I personally, never felt the necessity of putting my pension on the line for a 'GOTCHA'.
To each their own.

[Curt581]

One of the things we encourage people to do is make one of your first posts in the Introductions section. It's nice to know who you are and what you're about before you start trying to take our inflated egos down a few pegs or correcting our errors. It's the first section in General Public Forums, and is called "Rap Sheets".

Since you're making noises like you're a cop... we strongly discourage people from identifying themselves as law enforcement, either directly or by implication, unless they submit their information to Site Administration for Verification. A very strictly enforced rule in Site Terms of Service. Contact one of the Moderators.

There aren't many ways to get banned faster than claiming to be or implying you're an officer, when you really aren't.

[txinvestigator1]

After reading the posts on the closed 'Once Again...' thread I wanted to comment from my own experience.
Can an officer sit on private property and use radar? Yes.
Should they? Absolutely not.

Good grief. Thanks for teaching all us dumbasses about tort law and causation.

If the police stopped doing things that could cause someone to be sued, "if" some random thing happened then you might as well disband all of the departments.




from where do these people come?

[Ispbear]

Since the governement usually owns the property from sidewalk to sidewalk or in the rural area's fence line to fence line I don't see the problem.

Go away your stupity is annoying me.

[kels]

Go away your stupity is annoying me.

You Sir, have rep...................

Someone rep the Bear, I need to spread it around first.

[Curt581]

You Sir, have rep...................

Someone rep the Bear, I need to spread it around first.

Done

[kels]

I especially love them when they are issued by the USSC. Disregarding those can result in a charge of Misfeasance, either civilly, criminally, or both.
Now, I personally, never felt the necessity of putting my pension on the line for a 'GOTCHA'.
To each their own.

I have no clue what you are talking about.

on second thought, nevermind, I just found the IGNORE BUTTON.

Poof, you just disappeared.

[Timothy]

After reading the posts on the closed 'Once Again...' thread I wanted to comment from my own experience.
Can an officer sit on private property and use radar? Yes.
Should they? Absolutely not.
Why? Well, according to my old Chief, the legal system does not permit the agency to save the property owner harmless from Liability.
What does this mean in lay terms?
Officer Radar is sitting in Joe Homeowners private drive running his/her radar. Skippy Speeder goes flying past the officer at 30 mph over the posted limit. Radar flips on his lights and siren and hits the gas to catch Skippy. So far, no foul.
Unbeknown to Officer Radar, Nellie Neighbor, a 4 year old has come on to Joe's property to visit her 4 year old friend, Judy Homeowner.
While getting underway, Officer Radar's car causes gravel to be spit out from beneath his tires. One stone strikes Nellie in the eye which results in the loss of sight in that eye.
Mr. and Mrs. Neighbor sue. Who do they sue? The police department and civil authority Officer Radar works for. They also sue Joe Homeowner and his wife. The car WAS on their property. The jury finds for Nellie and, although the city/county insurance pays their share, Joe's policy has a $100,000.00 limit on liability. Joe loses his house.
Anybody who doubts this scenario, legally, could take place hasn't been watching Tort Law for the last 50 years.
The Liability can attach whether the private property is a home owners or a business. In the case of a business, their Incorporation may also be in jeopardy. Corporations are, by law, set up to engage in a lawful business which is detailed in their Incorporation documents. Most do not include Law Enforcement in their legal descriptions. Allowing the L/E activity to take place on their property can result in a suit which COULD cause the corporation to be found in violation of their charter. The state can void the corporation and cause the owners to cease business.
Most of you think us oldsters didn't do things the way you do now because we were just stupid and didn't think of it. Believe me, we thought of it and there was a REASON (usually law related) we didn't do it.

.....Not where you spent the night