Re: M-cyclist (20K miles)law student (165 LSAT)
The waivers of liability are a good start. They should absolve you of your "negligent acts". That means the usual stuff that injures people like fallen trees or holes in the ground. It will not cover for reckless stuff, like forgetting a pitchfork in the middle of a trail that you know riders will use; or intentional acts like stringing a 20 gage cable across a trail.
The signs help as well, allocate more assumption of risk on the rider, and are tougher to argue out of in a compartive neg. jurisdiction (meaning that the dumb rider's mistakes will be compared to your relatively minor negligence in allowing a trail to fall into disrepair.) However, hiding behind a "no trespassing" sign, when you know and allow people to trespass is a weak argument. It's similar to a bar saying "no minors", and then letting a school bus of 6 year olds in.
Insurance is great, but costs money, and has plenty of exceptions like "allowing 12 year olds to ride 500 CC ATVs on your land"-exception.
In sum, you have alot of policy on your side that protects landowners from liability for recreational activity on their land. Just like farmers who allow people to go fishing in their ponds; or public playground liability. Courts don't want to chill the american non-x box playing recreation alternatives. Also, as a motorcyclist, It is a kick in the balls that absent landowners with 2000 acres just sitting don't allow for more visitors.
I'm not bar certified, and probably doesn't get you any closer to your decision, just 2 cents.
Chip
The waivers of liability are a good start. They should absolve you of your "negligent acts". That means the usual stuff that injures people like fallen trees or holes in the ground. It will not cover for reckless stuff, like forgetting a pitchfork in the middle of a trail that you know riders will use; or intentional acts like stringing a 20 gage cable across a trail.
The signs help as well, allocate more assumption of risk on the rider, and are tougher to argue out of in a compartive neg. jurisdiction (meaning that the dumb rider's mistakes will be compared to your relatively minor negligence in allowing a trail to fall into disrepair.) However, hiding behind a "no trespassing" sign, when you know and allow people to trespass is a weak argument. It's similar to a bar saying "no minors", and then letting a school bus of 6 year olds in.
Insurance is great, but costs money, and has plenty of exceptions like "allowing 12 year olds to ride 500 CC ATVs on your land"-exception.
In sum, you have alot of policy on your side that protects landowners from liability for recreational activity on their land. Just like farmers who allow people to go fishing in their ponds; or public playground liability. Courts don't want to chill the american non-x box playing recreation alternatives. Also, as a motorcyclist, It is a kick in the balls that absent landowners with 2000 acres just sitting don't allow for more visitors.
I'm not bar certified, and probably doesn't get you any closer to your decision, just 2 cents.
Chip
