Land with deep pond, liability questions

[sealab2021]

Greetings,

My parents signed over 14 acres of property to me about a year ago that has a large deep pond on it, about 25 feet deep at the deepest. I about had a heart attack earlier as it just occurred to me what would happen if someone got hurt or drowned on the property. This place is off the beaten path and people routinely poach the fish out of the pond in the late hours. This place does not have any electricity or street lights. We have a floating dock with kayaks nearby and an aluminum Jon boat. These are all kept locked up, the entrance into the property is chained and posted no trespassing always, however in the late hours the gravel road is rarely traveled and people can park on the dirt county road and walk down into the property from the road and they have in the past. People routinely, park out in this area to have sex, do various drugs, shoot guns and underage drinking. Also we have no really close neighbors to keep people out. No real way of keeping people out except for the no trespassing signs already posted. What liability should I prepare for considering this is an attractive nuisance? Should I consider an umbrella policy for myself? Insure the property? I have no plans on selling the property but it’s also impossible to keep people out. Possible value of the property now, is $150,000. Right now there isn’t any insurance, I have a mortgaged house and an ira and a small brokerage account, not much someone can sue me for at this point in my life, they can take my high mileage 2009 Prius. Plan is to never sell, hold as there are many black walnut trees that can be harvested for veneer in 30 years or so. What risks am I looking, and what things should I consider? I live 5 hours out of state and don’t visit there often. I have younger family that I trust that I can authorize to do certain things if need be that are local.

Thanks for the replies.
Stan

Add: the security questions absolutely suck. I had a really hard time finding those answers.

[former player]

Insurance, with full disclosure to the insurance company of the facts.  You need a separate umbrella policy if you think the compensation limits payable on the property insurance won't cover any damages sought.

Any chance of draining the pond?

[sealab2021]

Insurance, with full disclosure to the insurance company of the facts.  You need a separate umbrella policy if you think the compensation limits payable on the property insurance won't cover any damages sought.

Any chance of draining the pond?

Draining the pond would devalue the property significantly, it’s out of the question. So you’re saying i need a specific policy for the property itself? This place may be a huge liability for me, especially if someone sues me and takes the property in the lawsuit. I want to minimize risk.

[former player]

I think you should ask an insurance agent about what's available that provides the best cover for the least cost: it might be a specific policy for this property or it might be something more general.  I think you are right that leaving it and you uninsured is not sensible.

Ideally I guess you would want to stop the local populace from using the property as their recreation area.  Would it be possible to put a house or trailer on the property and let it out?  Having the place inhabited is probably the only answer, short of mantraps (which your insurers wouldn't cover you for anyway).

[cool7hand]

The advice that you need to disclose what's on the property to your broker and get adequate insurance, including an umbrella policy, is the correct advice.

It sounds like you are worried that someone will get hurt, sue, and the insurance won't cover the loss and will go after the property and your other assets. No one has a crystal ball and can see the future, but I've never heard of this happening.

I used to work in the industry. When my family was deciding on updating coverage limits before and after I FIRED, I talked to friends and colleagues at multiple businesses in the industry, including major carriers like AIG, Chubb, and Liberty Mutual, and lawyers at both plaintiff- and defense-side firms. No one was aware of a case with adequate levels of insurance where the injured party tried to take the property or other personal assets of the property holder after the insurance policy's complete limit had been tendered for the loss. This includes after adverse jury judgments for more than the property value.

As I said, no one can predict the future. But the system is not known for going after personal property when you have adequate insurance.

So follow your broker's advice and get adequate insurance. And document the process with your broker. Send pictures. Invite the broker to inspect the property if they need more information. Because you can always sue your broker for malpractice if they fail to recommend adequate insurance and someone ends up going after your property.

For whatever it is worth, I'm so sure of this advice that I want you to know that it's what I would do if I were in your shoes.

DM me if you want more info.

[ctuser1]

It seems the property itself is paid for and has no mortgage. If so, is it possible to transfer it to some sort of limited liability structure that protects all of your other assets in case someone sues you?

I am sure it may be possible to pierce corporate vail. But I have heard (not wealthy enough myself to worry about the details personally, but I have worked with some very wealthy people) from other people that asset protection mechanisms exist.

The personal liability insurance you will likely need is likely to be unlimited. Let's say you get the typical $1MM policy that most insurance companies offer. How much do you think you will get sued for if a drunk couple drowns in the pond?

With a limited liability structure, yes the people suing you can take the property itself, but your personal affects should be protected. At least that is the theory.

[sealab2021]

Thanks for all the replies. I have had a personal umbrella policy in the past and it was only $155 a year through geico, covers up to one million in liability. As far as putting a structure/house there, no water or power anywhere out there. Even putting the property in an llc doesn’t really solve much, they can end up suing for the property itself, I don’t personally have much that someone can take most of my assets are in an IRA or equity locked up in my mortgaged house. I may further investigate if my potential umbrella will cover an accident on my property.

Most of the people in that area are generally low life’s, most of them have nothing to lose and are out for a quick buck. I don’t trust anyone. Selling is out, I promised my parents I would never sell the property.

[MrGreen]

Most homeowners insurance policies extend coverage to vacant land. Vacant land is the key term, so there can't be any man-made structures on it. I don't know if a dock would qualify here. Seems like the conversations Ive always had have been focused on buildings like barns or houses.

We have ~20 acres of vacant land that has liability coverage through our renter's insurance policy through State Farm. We then have an umbrella policy that increases that coverage.

Another thing you can do is look into your state's alternatives to no trespassing signs. Many states have a paint color you can use on tree trunks or poles in rural areas and it's the same as posting a no trespassing sign. Here in North Carolina it's purple paint. If used properly this would strengthen your position if anyone ever did bring a suit against you.

[ctuser1]

Even putting the property in an llc doesn’t really solve much, they can end up suing for the property itself, I don’t personally have much that someone can take most of my assets are in an IRA or equity locked up in my mortgaged house.

You have future earnings potential.

[sealab2021]

Most homeowners insurance policies extend coverage to vacant land. Vacant land is the key term, so there can't be any man-made structures on it. I don't know if a dock would qualify here. Seems like the conversations Ive always had have been focused on buildings like barns or houses.

We have ~20 acres of vacant land that has liability coverage through our renter's insurance policy through State Farm. We then have an umbrella policy that increases that coverage.

Another thing you can do is look into your state's alternatives to no trespassing signs. Many states have a paint color you can use on tree trunks or poles in rural areas and it's the same as posting a no trespassing sign. Here in North Carolina it's purple paint. If used properly this would strengthen your position if anyone ever did bring a suit against you.

The place in question is in Ohio, you aren’t even legally required to post no trespassing signs. I found this out in an unrelated way, basically you can be on property that’s not posted and still be charged with trespassing even though you didn’t know you were. There are a few structures on the property, just some small sheds and a carport.

I may just get the umbrella policy and ask them if I need additional insurance for the property. We have never had the property insured before.

[MyManMitch]

Hi - I manage my mother's farmland, her grandfather excavated and sold gravel off it. There is a large wet pit, I think almost 50ft deep. I've got liability insurance on the property, no tresspassing signs all around.

I think the biggest thing that keeps people away, is my uncle uses it regularly to fish and hang out around. Do you know someone in the area you can trust who you can let use the property to keep an eye on things?

[Fishindude]

We have five ponds and you can drown in 3' of water same as 25' deep.   About all you can do is post the place "no trespassing" and carry liability insurance and an umbrella policy.  An umbrella policy is pretty cheap.
It would be very unusual for any decent judge to convict you of any liability for some unknown trespasser drowning in your pond.   

As crummy as it sounds, you're actually probably more likely to be sued by a friend or guest getting injured on your property.  People tend to lose their morals and ethics when things start hitting them in the pocket book or they see dollar signs, so be careful about who you let use the place.

Enjoy your nice property and don't live in fear of this stuff.
If you've got a good friendly neighbor in the area, maybe you could exchange recreational permission to them so that they would keep an eye on things and keep the riff raff out?

[Dicey]

I'd also worry about someone harvesting the walnut trees if they're valuable.

[GuitarStv]

It's bizarre to me that a person trespassing and hurting themselves on clearly marked private property would have rights to sue the land owner.

[ctuser1]

It's bizarre to me that a person trespassing and hurting themselves on clearly marked private property would have rights to sue the land owner.

I *believe* (not a lawyer, and hence just an amateur opinion) the legal theory is that some portion of blame can be alleged on the negligent actions of the homeowner that would be dangerous for anyone even if he/she was not tress-passing.

In reality, most people would like to settle outside court if a reasonably plausible claim is made because of the expenses involved in fighting such a lawsuit.

I'm not a lawyer, but above is how non-lawyers think about insurance for property all the time in the US. I am sure there are many other location specific nuances that I have no idea about.

[ericrugiero]

Personally I would get a $1M umbrella policy for a couple hundred dollars/year and not worry about it.  That's gets the insurance company lawyers on your side which is worth a lot.  Keep no trespassing signs posted all over the property so it's obvious that anyone who is on the property knowingly violated those signs.  Avoid anything dangerous on the property that could be considered negligence.  (If I was on a jury, the person suing would have to prove MAJOR negligence for me to award any money to someone who was knowingly trespassing)

You could always put the property in a trust, LLC or something else.  That wouldn't keep anyone from taking the property but it would separate it from the rest of your assets.  I think that's overkill and I wouldn't do that unless you had significant assets. 

[GuitarStv]

It's bizarre to me that a person trespassing and hurting themselves on clearly marked private property would have rights to sue the land owner.

I *believe* (not a lawyer, and hence just an amateur opinion) the legal theory is that some portion of blame can be alleged on the negligent actions of the homeowner that would be dangerous for anyone even if he/she was not tress-passing.

In reality, most people would like to settle outside court if a reasonably plausible claim is made because of the expenses involved in fighting such a lawsuit.

I'm not a lawyer, but above is how non-lawyers think about insurance for property all the time in the US. I am sure there are many other location specific nuances that I have no idea about.

Right . . . but I mean . . . we're talking about a pond that exists on a property - not a swimming pool that the owner built.  It's just a natural feature of the land.  If someone is stupid enough to tresspass and hurt themselves on a natural feature it should really be on them.

If I trespassed on someone's lakeside cottage and drowned myself in the lake, it wouldn't be anyone's fault but mine.  Weird that a pond would be treated differently.

[EricEng]

Attractive nuisance laws only apply to children.  Age varies by state, some 6 and under, CO under 14.  If this area is not expected to see many children, then you would next expect the risk.  If an adult trespasses and gets hurt/dies you shouldn't have any liability.  No trespassing sign clears liability on most older children, so how much risk is there of a 6 year old wandering in by themselves?  Sounds pretty rural and remote.

https://people.howstuffworks.com/10-common-attractive-nuisances.htm#pt5

One of the underlying assumptions of the attractive nuisance doctrine is that the dangerous condition in question must be artificial or manmade, therefore natural features such as ponds, lakes and hills are typically exempt from attractive nuisance law.

In many cases, artificial water features benefit from their resemblance to the real thing, as courts have ruled that lakes and ponds -- even artificial ones -- are dangers that children should reasonably understand.

However, courts have tended to side with the minor child in cases involving more industrial water hazards, such as irrigation canals or ponds that form when rainwater collects in an abandoned quarry.

Also, if it is a natural pond in rural vs man made pond in suburban area that matters as well.  Again, sound like yours is rural and natural.

[ericrugiero]

It's bizarre to me that a person trespassing and hurting themselves on clearly marked private property would have rights to sue the land owner.

I *believe* (not a lawyer, and hence just an amateur opinion) the legal theory is that some portion of blame can be alleged on the negligent actions of the homeowner that would be dangerous for anyone even if he/she was not tress-passing.

In reality, most people would like to settle outside court if a reasonably plausible claim is made because of the expenses involved in fighting such a lawsuit.

I'm not a lawyer, but above is how non-lawyers think about insurance for property all the time in the US. I am sure there are many other location specific nuances that I have no idea about.

Right . . . but I mean . . . we're talking about a pond that exists on a property - not a swimming pool that the owner built.  It's just a natural feature of the land.  If someone is stupid enough to tresspass and hurt themselves on a natural feature it should really be on them.

If I trespassed on someone's lakeside cottage and drowned myself in the lake, it wouldn't be anyone's fault but mine.  Weird that a pond would be treated differently.

I agree with you 100% but the liability laws in the US are notoriously bad.  There are many examples of what I would consider frivolous lawsuits resulting in damages for the plaintiff whether they were trespassing or not. 

Like ctuser said, it often goes back to "negligence".  I think there is an expectation to have a fence around a pool but not around a pond.  The problem is there are terms like "negligence" and "reasonable" that are not always interpreted the same. 

[Car Jack]

Umbrella policies specifically call out your home, property, cars, what people are covered (a kid with too many accidents will likely be excluded) and any other vehicles, snowmobiles, boats, etc that you own and any property to be covered.

In short, yes, you need an umbrella policy and you need to be sure this property is covered.

It sounds like your state is similar to Massachusetts, where the law is "reverse posting" meaning that everywhere is No Trespassing unless you have permission or there is posting allowing entrance.  Even then, it's not a bad idea to take an armful of no trespassing signs and nail them onto trees around the border.

Could someone go on the property, get hurt and sue you?  Well yah.  I could say that I fell off my chair in front of my computer, just reading about that pond and sue you.  Win?  Not likely.

(so what's your legal address?, you know, in case I fall off my chair)

[Boll weevil]

I think it would also help if you took some proactive steps:

- Post no trespassing/hunting/fishing signs of equivalent (i.e. the purple paint in NC)
- Consider getting one or more game cameras and posting them over high traffic areas.
- Animal Planet channel has 2 or 3 shows where they follow game wardens around and they seem willing to handle some trespassing cases as well as enforce hunting/fishing without landowners consent. I would hope Ohio works the same.
- Talk to the sheriffs department about trespassing and/or loitering on the entrance road. See if they are willing to increase patrols in the area.

[EricEng]

- Animal Planet channel has 2 or 3 shows where they follow game wardens around and they seem willing to handle some trespassing cases as well as enforce hunting/fishing without landowners consent. I would hope Ohio works the same.
- Talk to the sheriffs department about trespassing and/or loitering on the entrance road. See if they are willing to increase patrols in the area.

That's a great way to waste people's time and money.  What good is a cop driving through a rural road once a month going to do?  Hope that it just happens to be at the same time as one of these trespassers are on the road and it scares them away?  The chance of them even knowing patrols increased is tiny unless you spend way more time and money patrolling an empty road than the land is worth.

[Plina]

Can't you just shoot one? It is what they always threathen to do in movies. It would probably deterr the rest. Or what is the point of all guncarrying?

[EricEng]

Can't you just shoot one? It is what they always threathen to do in movies. It would probably deterr the rest. Or what is the point of all guncarrying?

I don't believe any umbrella policy will cover first degree murder.

[Telecaster]

The place in question is in Ohio, you aren’t even legally required to post no trespassing signs. I found this out in an unrelated way, basically you can be on property that’s not posted and still be charged with trespassing even though you didn’t know you were. There are a few structures on the property, just some small sheds and a carport.

I may just get the umbrella policy and ask them if I need additional insurance for the property. We have never had the property insured before.

I'd post it anyway.  We're talking about civil suits here, not criminal charges.   The thing about lawsuits is that the other party and sometimes even the judge can be divorced from reality and the opposite side can make up some stupid story that you then have to rebutt, so the more bullets in your gun, the better.   The laws vary from state to state, but generally there is some language that the posts have to be "clear and conspicuous."    In the event of a lawsuit, you can point out that the site was posted in a "clear and conspicuous" manner and therefore the person should have known they were trespassing. 

[Telecaster]

Can't you just shoot one? It is what they always threathen to do in movies. It would probably deterr the rest. Or what is the point of all guncarrying?

I don't believe any umbrella policy will cover first degree murder.

That's why you always plant a knife on the body.

[GuitarStv]

Can't you just shoot one? It is what they always threathen to do in movies. It would probably deterr the rest. Or what is the point of all guncarrying?

I don't believe any umbrella policy will cover first degree murder.

That's why you always plant a knife on the body.

Or just say you felt threatened if your state has 'stand your ground' laws.  That's pretty airtight.

[bogart]

My husband and I own a property with a pond on it that a person could perfectly readily drown in, if they did something wildly stupid or if they were simply hanging out and having fun in a careless way, particularly if that involved alcohol.

I had a concern similar to the OPs when we bought the property and basically dug around a bit (I may have spoken with a lawyer, I honestly don't remember).  As far as I could figure out, in the rural SE it is unlikely that anyone would get very far with a suit that said, "I (or my deceased family member) stumbled (or got) into your pond without your permission and tragedy ensued."  There are properties with ponds, streams, and rivers all around ours and no one does (or thinks) anything about it -- we're all clear that ponds (etc.) are, you know, ponds (etc.) and that that has certain implications.

Certainly it would break my heart if anyone came to harm in our pond, and certainly anyone can try to sue anyone for anything in the US.  And we do carry an umbrella policy that we've had for a long time -- not related to the pond.  But honestly, assuming the pond is removed from high-traffic areas I wouldn't worry about it.

[norajean]

You have done about all you could reasonably do. You mention a Jon boat and some kayaks.  These should be secured out of sight for sure lest some foolish youngsters could take them out for a paddle and drown.  Attractive nuisance.

If it as wild as you describe with weekend parties fueled by alcohol, guns and sex then nothing wrong with notifying the Sheriff you would like more frequent drive-bys.

[sealab2021]

Wow, I took a day off and missed about 10 new replies. Thanks for the comments. I’ll address some of the comments people left.

Yes, lots and lots of no trespassing signs posted everywhere including the dock itself.

Chained access is locked, and all boats (we have 5 total including kayaks) are always locked, keys are controlled.

It’s not so much the people we trust, it’s the friends of friends of friends are likely going to be a problem. Mostly people we know with teen aged kids. Also these same people are likely to come back uninvited to fish or steal.

No police ever come around out there, I have never seen the police or DNR anywhere. The dirt roads are regularly used by people leaving bars late at night drunk to avoid the main roads, they commute to the nearest town.

We have a trail camera and an arlo camera that works through the cell towers and has a live feed. My parents set this up, as I am not there much. I think it has a motion feature but it is difficult as the wind tends to blow things around and activate it.

Based on my research and parroting off what a few people here said they are likely to sue and take the payout of the umbrella policy versus suing for the property itself. Best thing I see right now is insure myself for personal liability. I used to have an umbrella policy because of my boat, it was $155 a year and covered up to one million dollars.

Speaking of other things people posted, this place/area is almost like the Wild West. The elected sheriff literally tells people “if you shoot someone dead on your porch, be sure to drag them inside before you call us”.

Let me tell you a story, many stories that were told to me by people much older than myself. This is all strip reclaimed land with high walls (basically sheer cliffs remaining from strip mining operations). Historically, people would drive stolen vehicles off of the high walls, dump murdered bodies and allegedly the kkk used to hold meetings there and burn crosses. This is well before my time, but the place is largely still undeveloped and mostly owned by cattle farmers and the coal companies. Also close by is where the Craigslist killer was killing people, he lured people out into the middle of nowhere after they replied to his help wanted ad. They would meet him in the middle of nowhere and he would lead them up over a hill then shoot them. He was caught many years ago now. This is the kind of place where you usually have a gun of some type by your side, mostly because of the crazy people but also mountain lions and packs of coyotes, (they can become emboldened in large packs).

Where I live now is a stark contrast to rural Ohio, politically, ideologically, and we’re very progressive here near Washington DC.

Edit for clarity

[ericrugiero]

Speaking of other things people posted, this place/area is almost like the Wild West. The elected sheriff literally tells people “if you shoot someone dead on your porch, be sure to drag them inside before you call us”.

Let me tell you a story, many stories that were told to me by people much older than myself. This is all strip reclaimed land with high walls (basically sheer cliffs remaining from strip mining operations). Historically, people would drive stolen vehicles off of the high walls, dump murdered bodies and allegedly the kkk used to hold meetings there and burn crosses. This is well before my time, but the place is largely still undeveloped and mostly owned by cattle farmers and the coal companies. Also close by is where the Craigslist killer was killing people, he lured people out into the middle of nowhere after they replied to his help wanted ad. They would meet him in the middle of nowhere and he would lead them up over a hill then shoot them. He was caught many years ago now. This is the kind of place where you usually have a gun of some type by your side, mostly because of the crazy people but also mountain lions and packs of coyotes, (they can become emboldened in large packs).

Where I live now is a stark contrast to rural Ohio, politically, ideologically, and we’re very progressive here near Washington DC.

Edit for clarity

Now you are being a little dramatic.  Ohio had 293 violent crimes per 10,000 people in 2019.  DC had 1049 per 10,000.  https://www.americashealthrankings.org/explore/annual/measure/Crime/state/DC

Can you point me to some news stories on mountain lion attacks in Ohio?  The most recent I saw in a quick google search was 2003 and mentioned that the lion had been declawed so it was evidently somebody's "pet" before escaping. 

Not only that, people in rural Ohio feel much more at risk when they travel to cities like Cincinnati, Columbus, Cleveland, Toledo, Dayton, etc.  Those cities are where most of the violent crime happens.  Just because you are more comfortable in big progressive cities doesn't mean they are actually safer. 

[zolotiyeruki]

Can't you just shoot one? It is what they always threathen to do in movies. It would probably deterr the rest. Or what is the point of all guncarrying?

I don't believe any umbrella policy will cover first degree murder.

That's what the isolated 14 acres with a pond is for.

[former player]

Attractive nuisance laws only apply to children.  Age varies by state, some 6 and under, CO under 14.  If this area is not expected to see many children, then you would next expect the risk.  If an adult trespasses and gets hurt/dies you shouldn't have any liability.  No trespassing sign clears liability on most older children, so how much risk is there of a 6 year old wandering in by themselves?  Sounds pretty rural and remote.

https://people.howstuffworks.com/10-common-attractive-nuisances.htm#pt5

One of the underlying assumptions of the attractive nuisance doctrine is that the dangerous condition in question must be artificial or manmade, therefore natural features such as ponds, lakes and hills are typically exempt from attractive nuisance law.

In many cases, artificial water features benefit from their resemblance to the real thing, as courts have ruled that lakes and ponds -- even artificial ones -- are dangers that children should reasonably understand.

However, courts have tended to side with the minor child in cases involving more industrial water hazards, such as irrigation canals or ponds that form when rainwater collects in an abandoned quarry.

Also, if it is a natural pond in rural vs man made pond in suburban area that matters as well.  Again, sound like yours is rural and natural.

One word of warning on this: if the pond is the result of mining or quarrying operations, as it sounds as though it might be, it may not be treated as "natural" for legal purposes.  This is probably something to mention to the insurance broker, in case it makes a difference in your State.

[Fishindude]

No police ever come around out there, I have never seen the police or DNR anywhere. The dirt roads are regularly used by people leaving bars late at night drunk to avoid the main roads, they commute to the nearest town.

Speaking of other things people posted, this place/area is almost like the Wild West. The elected sheriff literally tells people “if you shoot someone dead on your porch, be sure to drag them inside before you call us”.

This is all strip reclaimed land with high walls (basically sheer cliffs remaining from strip mining operations). Historically, people would drive stolen vehicles off of the high walls, dump murdered bodies and allegedly the kkk used to hold meetings there and burn crosses. This is well before my time, but the place is largely still undeveloped and mostly owned by cattle farmers and the coal companies. This is the kind of place where you usually have a gun of some type by your side, mostly because of the crazy people but also mountain lions and packs of coyotes, (they can become emboldened in large packs).

This sounds like my kind of country !
Some of the most remote areas, best hunting and fishing in my home state is in the old strip mine areas.   I had a cabin on an old strip pit for many years, did lots of fishing in those pits.

People gripe about the environmental damage done by mining.  If not for mining, my state wouldn't have nearly as much public water and public recreation land.   They do a wonderful job reclaiming these properties.

[sealab2021]

Speaking of other things people posted, this place/area is almost like the Wild West. The elected sheriff literally tells people “if you shoot someone dead on your porch, be sure to drag them inside before you call us”.

Let me tell you a story, many stories that were told to me by people much older than myself. This is all strip reclaimed land with high walls (basically sheer cliffs remaining from strip mining operations). Historically, people would drive stolen vehicles off of the high walls, dump murdered bodies and allegedly the kkk used to hold meetings there and burn crosses. This is well before my time, but the place is largely still undeveloped and mostly owned by cattle farmers and the coal companies. Also close by is where the Craigslist killer was killing people, he lured people out into the middle of nowhere after they replied to his help wanted ad. They would meet him in the middle of nowhere and he would lead them up over a hill then shoot them. He was caught many years ago now. This is the kind of place where you usually have a gun of some type by your side, mostly because of the crazy people but also mountain lions and packs of coyotes, (they can become emboldened in large packs).

Where I live now is a stark contrast to rural Ohio, politically, ideologically, and we’re very progressive here near Washington DC.

Edit for clarity

Now you are being a little dramatic.  Ohio had 293 violent crimes per 10,000 people in 2019.  DC had 1049 per 10,000.  https://www.americashealthrankings.org/explore/annual/measure/Crime/state/DC

Can you point me to some news stories on mountain lion attacks in Ohio?  The most recent I saw in a quick google search was 2003 and mentioned that the lion had been declawed so it was evidently somebody's "pet" before escaping. 

Not only that, people in rural Ohio feel much more at risk when they travel to cities like Cincinnati, Columbus, Cleveland, Toledo, Dayton, etc.  Those cities are where most of the violent crime happens.  Just because you are more comfortable in big progressive cities doesn't mean they are actually safer.

Things on online forums are often taken out of context. Yes, I don’t know of anyone killed by a mountain lion but I have seen them in person and they can get pretty large. There have been packs of formerly domestic dogs roaming around that have gone feral and hunt in packs. While don’t actually live IN DC, I realize murders and crime etc are higher.

The property is so remote there’s little if any cell phone coverage even still today. If you get a severe injury, or need to report a crime in progress it’s not going to happen. Your are on your own. This does not include the bears that are there too and while most of these animals tend to avoid humans there are the rare case of attacks especially if the animal is starving or has rabies. There have been documented cases of deer attacking humans because of near starvation.

Compared to anywhere in the city, there are many witness around, local police patrols on every road and plenty of cell phone coverage, and hospitals nearby. In the city you can be smart by avoiding certain places, areas, and crime data can be misleading in this manner. Animals, and people strung out on opioids or meth out where there are no witnesses around, anything is possible. I plan on being around ages yet, I’m not taking any chances.

[ericrugiero]

Speaking of other things people posted, this place/area is almost like the Wild West. The elected sheriff literally tells people “if you shoot someone dead on your porch, be sure to drag them inside before you call us”.

Let me tell you a story, many stories that were told to me by people much older than myself. This is all strip reclaimed land with high walls (basically sheer cliffs remaining from strip mining operations). Historically, people would drive stolen vehicles off of the high walls, dump murdered bodies and allegedly the kkk used to hold meetings there and burn crosses. This is well before my time, but the place is largely still undeveloped and mostly owned by cattle farmers and the coal companies. Also close by is where the Craigslist killer was killing people, he lured people out into the middle of nowhere after they replied to his help wanted ad. They would meet him in the middle of nowhere and he would lead them up over a hill then shoot them. He was caught many years ago now. This is the kind of place where you usually have a gun of some type by your side, mostly because of the crazy people but also mountain lions and packs of coyotes, (they can become emboldened in large packs).

Where I live now is a stark contrast to rural Ohio, politically, ideologically, and we’re very progressive here near Washington DC.

Edit for clarity

Now you are being a little dramatic.  Ohio had 293 violent crimes per 10,000 people in 2019.  DC had 1049 per 10,000.  https://www.americashealthrankings.org/explore/annual/measure/Crime/state/DC

Can you point me to some news stories on mountain lion attacks in Ohio?  The most recent I saw in a quick google search was 2003 and mentioned that the lion had been declawed so it was evidently somebody's "pet" before escaping. 

Not only that, people in rural Ohio feel much more at risk when they travel to cities like Cincinnati, Columbus, Cleveland, Toledo, Dayton, etc.  Those cities are where most of the violent crime happens.  Just because you are more comfortable in big progressive cities doesn't mean they are actually safer.

Things on online forums are often taken out of context. Yes, I don’t know of anyone killed by a mountain lion but I have seen them in person and they can get pretty large. There have been packs of formerly domestic dogs roaming around that have gone feral and hunt in packs. While don’t actually live IN DC, I realize murders and crime etc are higher.

The property is so remote there’s little if any cell phone coverage even still today. If you get a severe injury, or need to report a crime in progress it’s not going to happen. Your are on your own. This does not include the bears that are there too and while most of these animals tend to avoid humans there are the rare case of attacks especially if the animal is starving or has rabies. There have been documented cases of deer attacking humans because of near starvation.

Compared to anywhere in the city, there are many witness around, local police patrols on every road and plenty of cell phone coverage, and hospitals nearby. In the city you can be smart by avoiding certain places, areas, and crime data can be misleading in this manner. Animals, and people strung out on opioids or meth out where there are no witnesses around, anything is possible. I plan on being around ages yet, I’m not taking any chances.

All good points.  I don't want to be face to face in the wilderness with a meth addict, mountain lion or a pack of wild dogs.  I was just busting your chops a bit and pointing out that the statistical risks are very low.  You can be stupid in a big city or in the country and drive your risks way up.  If you use common sense and take reasonable precautions the risks are typically pretty low.  I still say most the "most dangerous places in America" are the bad parts of big cities. 

[Michael in ABQ]

It's bizarre to me that a person trespassing and hurting themselves on clearly marked private property would have rights to sue the land owner.

I was going to say the same thing.


How terrible is it that this is even something to worry about? WTF is wrong with our legal system that is is even a possibility for someone to sue for damages while they are committing a crime?

[GuitarStv]

It's bizarre to me that a person trespassing and hurting themselves on clearly marked private property would have rights to sue the land owner.

I was going to say the same thing.


How terrible is it that this is even something to worry about? WTF is wrong with our legal system that is is even a possibility for someone to sue for damages while they are committing a crime?

There are reasonable instances where someone could both commit a crime and sue for damages.  For example, if a person ate a grape from the produce section while grocery shopping that's a crime - but it would be reasonable to allow them to sue if the store owner saw this and then broke both the arms of the shopper.  Most people commit minor crimes every day (speeding/rolling through a stop sign, jaywalking, eating a grape from the produce section, etc.) it's unreasonable to deny folks all legal redress when they do this.

But to ignore no tresspassing signs and then hurt yourself through stupidity . . . and then sue?  That does seem a little over the line.