Teen on ATV survives close call with cable

[skypilot]

Locally in ON we have had issues with wire and sled trails. It's a pretty sorry person to attempt to cause harm on Crown Land....

Most of the cable use in the Southern US that I see is near a roadway, used like a gate entrance to prevent entrance of vehicles pulling off the road.

In this case, if it was placed in a trail intending to harm, that's another issue.

Anyway, she had no business on another's property with an atv without permission. Posted or not.

[JBen]

Wells have to be capped
snow has to be shovelled
Pools have to be fenced.

if a kid sneaks into your back yard and falls down an open well, or drowns in an unfenced pool (duty of care). You are in a world of trouble. Dont think intent to injure has anything to do with it. Though it could make matters worse.

some things are inherently dangerous. Be that a well/pool or cable across a sled/atv trail. The landowner may claim "wasn't me" and if charges are laid. Not sure how it can be proven. However theres lots of wells (pools) out there that owners didn't put in, but still owe a duty of care.

right/wrong/fair
who knows. But kids will be kids.

[trimmer21]

With remote privately-owned property,it's not beyond the realm of possibility that someone other than the owner may have done this. I'm thinking clandestine grow-op or some other illegal activity taking place where crooks purposely laid a booby trap to discourage others from interfering. Anything is possible,but,at any rate,all riders and outdoors people need to be aware that they may run into something like this and exercise due caution. Sadly,it's a sign of the times.

[welsh]

if a kid sneaks into your back yard and falls down an open well, or drowns in an unfenced pool (duty of care). You are in a world of trouble. Dont think intent to injure has anything to do with it. Though it could make matters worse.

That's right. The landowner's duty of care is a matter of civil liability and intent doesn't enter into it. The duty of care exists regardless of whether the landowner himself strings the cable.

Intent does enter into the question of criminal charges. Either the provable intent to cause injury, which would result in some very serious charges, or recklessness as to the consequences of stringing a wire across a trail, which would be criminal negligence.

This doesn't mean it's okay to be a trespasser, either. One of the first things to disappear on these threads is the idea that both parties can be in the wrong.

[rick_iles]

There's no question there is a duty of care, however the law now lessens that duty where trespassers and persons entering for unlawful purposes are concerned. Both are deemed to have accepted any risks associated with the property. However, landowners still can't set traps or attempt to injure.

[blasted_saber]

With remote privately-owned property,it's not beyond the realm of possibility that someone other than the owner may have done this. I'm thinking clandestine grow-op or some other illegal activity taking place where crooks purposely laid a booby trap to discourage others from interfering. Anything is possible,but,at any rate,all riders and outdoors people need to be aware that they may run into something like this and exercise due caution. Sadly,it's a sign of the times.

One of our former neighbours (at the camp) put chain across the snowmobile traile and one of our own trails on our property. We had words with him about our property and snowmobile trail association had words with him about the trail

[MarkB]

What if you cut down some trees across the path or put up a barrier and a tresspasser ran into it and hurt themselves, Still landowners fault?

I wouldn't think so. The tree is very visable. A thin cable at neck level on the other hand ...

Anyhow, I can be sure of one thing ... there's going to be a court case, both the land owner and the child's family are going to be filling lawyer's pockets. I can bet that the land owner is wishing he wasn't in the middle of all this mess right now.

[B Wilson]

That's right. The landowner's duty of care is a matter of civil liability and intent doesn't enter into it. The duty of care exists regardless of whether the landowner himself strings the cable.

Intent does enter into the question of criminal charges. Either the provable intent to cause injury, which would result in some very serious charges, or recklessness as to the consequences of stringing a wire across a trail, which would be criminal negligence.

This doesn't mean it's okay to be a trespasser, either. One of the first things to disappear on these threads is the idea that both parties can be in the wrong.

In Ontario Bill 100 reached royal assent on June 8

changes were made to several acts that, in this situation the trespassing atv operator assumed all risk by entering the property.

The maximum fine is now up to $10 000.00 for trespassing and no limit on damage claims from the land owner against the trespasser.

But this happened in Quebec, so not sure what their laws are. Not sure if I was a teenager from Ontario admitting to tresspassing in Quebec I would expect the Quebec authorities to vigorously go after a Quebec private land owner.

i think proving criminal intent beyond reasonable doubt would very difficult without the landowner incriminating himself.

[Woodsman]

In Ontario Bill 100 reached royal assent on June 8

changes were made to several acts that, in this situation the trespassing atv operator assumed all risk by entering the property.

Yes this wasn't in Ontario but if it was how do you determine the "trespassing atv operator" was actually trespassing as defined in the Trespass legislation? The story doesn't support a trespassing situation. No signs or verbal warnings are confirmed in the posted story. Under the Trespass legislation it takes more than being on private property to constitute trespassing. A rural trail will generally require more than just being privately owned to automatically meet the definition of trespassing under the law.

[B Wilson]

Yes this wasn't in Ontario but if it was how do you determine the "trespassing atv operator" was actually trespassing as defined in the Trespass legislation? The story doesn't support a trespassing situation. No signs or verbal warnings are confirmed in the posted story. Under the Trespass legislation it takes more than being on private property to constitute trespassing. A rural trail will generally require more than just being privately owned to automatically meet the definition of trespassing under the law.

It certainly does support a trespassing situation when the teen admitted she knew she was trespassing during a cbc radio interview.