[DRAFT] Trespassers get nothing

[Imperium Anglorum]

Advancement of Industry: Tort Reform

Whereas persons trespassing on another persons' property are disturbing their peaceable exercise of the rights of that property :

And whereas a fundamental principle of one's ability to enjoy the land which one purchased must be the ability to enforce the exclusivity and dominion of the owner :

And whereas trespassers can easily avoid injury or other issues on properties which they trespass upon by not trespassing on such properties :

Be it enacted by the World Assembly, by and with the advice and consent of the Delegates and Members, in this present session assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows :—

No claim may be brought nor any judgement enforced, in an action:

1. brought by a trespasser who is not a member of law enforcement
2. for negligent tortious behaviour
3. against the party in legal possession
4. of a property with clearly marked boundaries
5. on which the trespasser trespassed
6. for relief or damages of any kind under law or equity.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Reserved.

[Linux and the X]

Nah.

[Aclion]

As written this would be mean that a trespasser could never make any claim against the trespassie for any reason, even claims having nothing to do with the trespass.

[Imperium Anglorum]

As written this would be mean that a trespasser could never make any claim against the trespassie for any reason, even claims having nothing to do with the trespass.

That's a good point.

[Grug Island]

Grug squat where Grug want

[WayNeacTia]

"Unsure as to how this is even remotely an international issue."

Wayne

[Bananaistan]

OOC: This flies in the face of RL practice and reverts to Victorian era precedent that even children who accidentally wander onto private property will receive no reparations for negligence of the property owner. Incredibly regressive. While there is also issues with removing courts ability to judge contributory negligence and the lack of this being an international issue. Opposed.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Unsure as to how this is even remotely an international issue."

Wayne

"This, somewhat surprisingly, is the C.D.S.P.'s position as well."

[The New Bluestocking Homeland]

As written this would be mean that a trespasser could never make any claim against the trespassie for any reason, even claims having nothing to do with the trespass.

"That is NBH's reading as well. Opposed."

[Maowi]

As written this would be mean that a trespasser could never make any claim against the trespassie for any reason, even claims having nothing to do with the trespass.

"That is NBH's reading as well. Opposed."

"I believe it would be helpful for the author to clarify that all the conditions presented in the proposal must be met for the situation to fall under its influence. Also, part d. should not be written as a new condition on a new line. It is a continuation of part c."

[Liberimery]

I’ll back up the complaints about the formatting. I would also like to point out that there should be an exception if the trespasser incurred damages because of the property owner was engaged in illegal activity and the trespasser received those injuries as a result of illicit activity.


Does this establish Castle Doctrine in WA member states?

[Bears Armed]

No claim may be brought nor any judgement enforced, for any cause of action:
[a] arising from a trespasser

"This seems to say that if the trespasser causes damage to the landowner's property, or even assaults somebody there, then they can not be sued for doing so...
If that is indeed the case, would not this contradict some existing GA legislation? What if, for example, they harm an endangered species or start an uncontrolled fire?"

Hwa Sue,
Legal Attaché,
Bears Armed Mission to the World Assembly
(and anthropomorphic male Giant Panda [male]).

[Imperium Anglorum]

'Brought by' is better phrasing.

If we really should think about the children, then teach them not to trespass.

[Linux and the X]

To clarify, clause (b) intentionally protects against negligence claims only, yes? Trespassers could still sue for malicious acts?

[Imperium Anglorum]

To clarify, clause (b) intentionally protects against negligence claims only, yes? Trespassers could still sue for malicious acts?

That is what the current phrasing says.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: I wont go into criticising the actual proposal yet, I will stick to the title for now. "Trespassers get nothing." Is a badly worded sentence, what do trespassers get nothing of? Why is this used as a title? I suggest something on the grounds of "Trespassing Regulation Act".

[Refuge Isle]

OOC: I wont go into criticising the actual proposal yet, I will stick to the title for now. "Trespassers get nothing." Is a badly worded sentence, what do trespassers get nothing of? Why is this used as a title? I suggest something on the grounds of "Trespassing Regulation Act".

Not everything needs to have a pleasant political spin title. It's the content that matters. If IA wants to have a more informal title, that's a stylistic choice I support.

[Imperium Anglorum]

E Mortimer Wellesley: Is all we can expect from the delegation from Marxist Germany really stylistic complaints about length and titles that are well within common legislative practice?

[Marxist Germany]

E Mortimer Wellesley: Is all we can expect from the delegation from Marxist Germany really stylistic complaints about length and titles that are well within common legislative practice?

"That is not true, (firstly you replied to an OOC post with IC but I will pretend the post was IC) I said that I will make a comment on stylistic choices for now, until I get enough time to make comments on the actual content."

[Imperium Anglorum]

It is also acceptable to make general comments about the world in an IC manner. Watch:

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley: I bet the Carians will be here any moment now to filibuster this bill with a veritable Gish gallop of red herrings and non sequiturs.

I don't see any reason why the title I chose is any less 'serious' than: USA FREEDOM Act, I mean, the Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ensuring Effective Discipline Over Monitoring Act.

[Losthaven]

As with many of the brief proposals that seem to be the rage these days, this draws to hard a line without any of the finesse or flexibility required to deal with real life situations. Losthaven presently does not care enough for the actions of this body to give a lengthy description of all that is wrong here. I'll share just one obvious problem: even if we accept your principle that intentional trespassers generally should be unable to recover for their wrongs (the classic example is the burglar who falls from the skylight and cuts his hand on a knife left out in the kitchen), what do we do with unintentional trespassers, such as a wanderer on state land who inadvertently walks onto private property.

Again, such brevity in proposals has serious downsides, including an inability to capture nuance.

Best,
The Losthaven Wanderlust Society

[Imperium Anglorum]

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley: That's fully intentional. Our delegation does not want trespassers to recover anything of any sort from any negligent action or inaction taken by a person in seisin.

[Refuge Isle]

As far as the draft goes, even outside of the "is this an international issue," the one-liner resolution you made about politically enfranchising prisoners is a democracy step that the WA would be interested in, but governments probably wouldn't do on their own. How is this something that would be in the WA would be interested in seeing but we couldn't trust nations to make on a local level? What would the WA get out of having this?

[Forensatha]

Like some of the legislation on the books, this resolution would grossly violate my national sovereignty if passed.