Suwannee River Water Management District delays leasing public lands for private hunting use. Bruce Ritchie, 06/12/2012 - 06:36 PM. + responses. LIVE OAK -- The Suwannee River Water Management District on Tuesday put on hold plans to lease state ... Suwannee River Water Management District delays leasing public lands for ...
With the litigious society that we live in these days, Hunting Lease Insurance has become a staple for most fee hunting operations. Landowners realize that they must protect themselves from suit whether it be a legitimate case or a frivolous one. All 50 states have adopted a "recreational user" statute that limits the landowners liability when the property is used for recreational purposes and no fee or other benefit is received. The purpose of this law is to encourage landowners to open their property for public recreation thus reducing the states expenses of providing public land for such purposes.
When landowners offer hunting leases and accept a fee (or any other benefit) for hunting on their property, they take on legal responsibility for the safety of the hunters. The paying hunter becomes an "invitee" and the law states that landowners have a "duty of ordinary and reasonable care" to their invitees. The landowners responsibilities change considerably according to the legal status of the visitor. The courts recognize three classifications of visitors on the property of the owner. They are trespassers, licensees and invitees.
An owners only obligation to a trespasser is to use due care to avoid injuring the trespasser if his presence is known. A landowner is exposed to little, if any, successful action against him should an accident befall a trespasser. The owner is only obligated to protect the trespasser from intentional injury. A licensee is one who enters the property with the owners permission but there is no economic benefit to the landowner. The landowner has no obligation to make the premises safe for the licensee, but must warn of known dangers. When a landowner establishes a fee for some activity on his premises, it places the patron into the classification of invitee. Landowner responsibilities increase when a charge for land use is involved. Legally, invitees are owed the highest level of care to prevent injury. A landowner is liable in a court of law for injuries resulting from failure to provide reasonable safety to the invitee. He will not, however, be liable if he adequately warns the invitee of a known danger, or if the dangerous conditions causing injury are such that a reasonable inspection of the premises by the landowner would not have revealed the danger.
Nobody can predict how someone will react when put under extreme stress. Lots of folks say, Bob would never sue me so I dont need liability insurance. It might not be Bob that sues you, instead Bobs wife now that she has no working husband to support her shopping habits, or your neighbor that Bob accidently shot. Hunting Lease Insurance is inexpensive peace of mind so give it consideration when you sign your next hunting lease agreement.
Find More Hunting Lease Insurance Topics
Question by Reaper: Imminent Domain?? just seeing what some outside thoughts are? My family has had some land for a few generations. My father inherited and bought some more land that totals about 700 acres. It is not developed land. It is mostly leased to people for hunting and some for raising hay for livestock. My father's land is near the city border. The city wishes to purchase the land to put up government housing. My father refused to sell the land cause he doesn't want government housing on it. Yes, I know we can lose the land to imminent domain and get paid only what the state values the land at. At the council meeting some of the people hoping to get the government housing stated we did not need so much land. My question is what right does a person have to say how much is too much? Part of their dispute is people need housing (not our problem. they have as much chance as us to succeed), and the housing will bring jobs to build the complexes(short term). What are your thoughts?? Sorry i was in hurry and understand it is Eminent Domain. I stated in the question I understand we may lose the land and get a low price I asked what did you think about people saying how much is too much. This is not the first time in dealing with the state on this issue Best answer for Imminent Domain?? just seeing what some outside thoughts are?:
Answer by Pfo
It's "eminent" domain. In cases of eminent domain, it's what the state / government says. They can just take it at whatever price they name. They can make up excuses for why they need it, take it, and not act on their reasons. There's nothing you can do.
Answer by BigD
Imminent? Eminent Domain? Either way, it sucks. Fight it tooth and nail!
Answer by Natalie
The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently deferred to the right of states to make their own determinations of public use. Eminent domain is compulsory. Had I been your father, I would sell, otherwise you might not get very much for the land.
Answer by rickinnocal
It's "Eminent Domain". Under English law, as adopted by the USA on independence, the government could take private property against the owners will only for "public use", and on the payment of "Just Compensation". This was in fact exactly what the founders put into the Constitution. In the 5th Amendment it says "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Under English case law, the meaning of "public use" had become clearly established as being for actual government projects. The government could take your land to build a road, or a school, or something similar for the public to use. The first cases, in both England and the USA, of land being taken by eminent domain and then sold to a private party for him to use were for the same thing - railroads. The courts, both English and American, held that even though a railroad might be privately owned, it was 'used' by anyone, and benefited anyone, and that using eminent domain to acquire the right of way was therefore legal. While that is still pretty much the law in England, in the USA the concept of public "use" has, over the last 30 years or so, morphed into the public "good". More and more, property was taken and then given to private developers to use for projects expected to generate tax revenue. This finally came to a head in the case of "Kelo v. New London". The city of New London, CT, wanted to seize the homes of Kelo and several of her neighbors. These were nice waterfront homes, in a good neighborhood, with no quaetion of being 'blighted' or any such. The city merely decided that a developers plan to demolish them and build a hotel / retail / condo complex on the site would generate more tax revenue for the city than private homes. The Supreme Court ruled that increasing tax revenues was a "public good", and that the seizure was thus legal. (It is worth noting that the project was never built. The area where Kelo and her neighhbors lived is now an expanse of demolished lots, used only by drug dealers and hookers.) Richard
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar