No more liability for landowners

[yotewacker]

The DNR passed a new law July the 1st of this year. It reads that if your on someones property for hunting, fishing or camping and you get hurt. You cannot sue the landowner for anything. The landowner is exempt from any liability, injury or medical bills on his property while its being used by another.

The purpose of this new law was to make more private land available for hunting.
I sure hope it works.

 

[jmiller676]

Good, there are to many people getting hurt because they're stupid and trying to pass the blame off.

 

[shibumiseeker]

How is this different than what we had in the past?

The problem is that it is not people suing landowners, it's insurance companies.

Example: had a friend hit his head on a beam coming out of another friend's basement. Gave him a concussion and sent him to the hospital. HIS insurance company contacted the homeowner's insurance company without any participation on the part of the two friends, and the two insurance companies settled on who was paying what part of the bills.

We have had people's insurance company telling them to not allow anyone into a cave on their property, in spite of the fact that Indiana has a cave owner protection law that states the same thing: landowners who allow people to visit their caves and don't charge for it cannot be held liable.

 

[hooky]

I don't know the code, but my Dad was talking about this on Sunday. He said he still has a legal obligation to disclose extraordinary dangers. He understood that to be things like an abandoned mine or punji pits.

 

[jmiller676]

How is this different than what we had in the past?

The problem is that it is not people suing landowners, it's insurance companies.

Example: had a friend hit his head on a beam coming out of another friend's basement. Gave him a concussion and sent him to the hospital. HIS insurance company contacted the homeowner's insurance company without any participation on the part of the two friends, and the two insurance companies settled on who was paying what part of the bills.

We have had people's insurance company telling them to not allow anyone into a cave on their property, in spite of the fact that Indiana has a cave owner protection law that states the same thing: landowners who allow people to visit their caves and don't charge for it cannot be held liable.

How can insurance companies go over the heads of those who they are serving for? Must be some fine print somewhere stashed in a clause. To much paper work.

 

[singlesix]

How is this different than what we had in the past?

The problem is that it is not people suing landowners, it's insurance companies.

Example: had a friend hit his head on a beam coming out of another friend's basement. Gave him a concussion and sent him to the hospital. HIS insurance company contacted the homeowner's insurance company without any participation on the part of the two friends, and the two insurance companies settled on who was paying what part of the bills.

We have had people's insurance company telling them to not allow anyone into a cave on their property, in spite of the fact that Indiana has a cave owner protection law that states the same thing: landowners who allow people to visit their caves and don't charge for it cannot be held liable.

(b) Subject to section 11 of this chapter, a participant or participant's representative may not:
(1) make a claim against;
(2) maintain an action against; or
(3) recover from;
an agritourism provider for injury, loss, damage, or death of the participant resulting from an inherent risk of agritourism activities.

Does "participant's representative" include insurance companies?

 

[shibumiseeker]

IC 14-22-10-2 "The Premises Liability Law" (1996)

(a) As used in this section, "governmental entity" means any of the following . . .

(b) As used in this section, "Owner" means a governmental entity or another person that:

1. Has a fee interest in;
2. Is a tenant, lessee, or an occupant of; or
3. Is in control of; a tract of land.

(c) A person who goes upon or through the premises, including caves, of another;

1. With or without permission to hunt, fish, swim, trap, camp, hike, sightsee, or for any other purpose and
2. Either:

(A) Without the payment of monetary consideration; or
(B.) With the payment of monetary consideration directly or indirectly on the person's behalf by an agency of the state or federal government; does not have an assurance that the premises are safe for the purpose.

(d) The owner of the premises does not assume responsibility for or incur liability for an injury to a person or property caused by an act or failure to act of other persons using the premises.

(e) This section does not affect the following: (1) Existing Indiana case law of liability of owners or possessors of premises with respect to the following: (A) Business invitees in commercial establishments. (B) Invited guests. (C) The attractive nuisance doctrine.

(f) This section does not excuse the owner or occupant of premises from liability for injury to a person or property caused by a malicious or an illegal act of the owner or occupant.

 

[wabash]

The DNR passed a new law July the 1st of this year.

is this a DNR rule, or did the legislature pass it?

 

[Lonnie]

This isn't a new law , its a legislative law thats been on the books for years

 

[Lonnie]

How is this different than what we had in the past?

The problem is that it is not people suing landowners, it's insurance companies.

Example: had a friend hit his head on a beam coming out of another friend's basement. Gave him a concussion and sent him to the hospital. HIS insurance company contacted the homeowner's insurance company without any participation on the part of the two friends, and the two insurance companies settled on who was paying what part of the bills.

We have had people's insurance company telling them to not allow anyone into a cave on their property, in spite of the fact that Indiana has a cave owner protection law that states the same thing: landowners who allow people to visit their caves and don't charge for it cannot be held liable.

coming out of a basement has nothing to do with hunting and allowing permission to hunt , trap or fish

 

[jmiller676]

coming out of a basement has nothing to do with hunting and allowing permission to hunt , trap or fish

No but I think the correlation is getting injured on private property when you have consent of the landowner to be there.

 

[shibumiseeker]

coming out of a basement has nothing to do with hunting and allowing permission to hunt , trap or fish

Actually, yes it does as it alludes to the duty of a landowner to invitees onto their property. More to the point, if you read what I wrote fully, the example I provided was specifically regarding the fact that what transpired went on between two insurance companies and the legal side and indeed the wishes of the landowner and the invitee were left completely out of the equation.

In short, insurance companies really run this country in many ways.

Keep that in mind the next time you fasten your seatbelt.

 

[Kutnupe14]

So basically, I can step up booby traps all over my property, and if a guy asks to hunt my land, and I say "proceed at your own risk," I'm covered? sqweet!

 

[JamesZX1100]

That's very nice to know! I had no clue! Since it's the actual LAW, maybe more landowners will let individuals hunt his/her property!

 

[nate1865]

Example: had a friend hit his head on a beam coming out of another friend's basement. Gave him a concussion and sent him to the hospital. HIS insurance company contacted the homeowner's insurance company without any participation on the part of the two friends, and the two insurance companies settled on who was paying what part of the bills.

Um - how do you know he's telling the truth?

It's much more plausible that he contacted the insurance company and tipped them off as to what happened.

Seen it happen. We are a money hungry people.

 

[IndySSD]

The DNR passed a new law July the 1st of this year. It reads that if your on someones property for hunting, fishing or camping and you get hurt. You cannot sue the landowner for anything. The landowner is exempt from any liability, injury or medical bills on his property while its being used by another.

The purpose of this new law was to make more private land available for hunting.
I sure hope it works.

That's a GREAT BIG +1 for landowners vs. poachers especially!~!

NICE!!

 

[shibumiseeker]

Um - how do you know he's telling the truth?

It's much more plausible that he contacted the insurance company and tipped them off as to what happened.

Seen it happen. We are a money hungry people.

1. I know my friends, they aren't that kind of people and he got no monetary gain from it.

2. It was on the ER report which the insurance company got a copy of.

3. It's not the only example I have of exactly this situation.



And I still haven't seen anyone explain how this "new" DNR statement is either:

1. New legislation which the IDNR doesn't have the power to pass,

or

2. Different from the existing act from the legislature which I quoted.

 

[Spanky46151]

The insurance companies actually are the legal "owners" of the liability. You pay them to "gamble" that you're going to pay more in premiums than they are going to pay out in losses. As such, they get to decide what level of responsibility they want to assume and what portion they want the other insurance company/"gambler" to take care of.

Actually it's very similar to your medical history...your physician owns that and is not required to release it. Welcome to Wonderland, Alice. lol

 

[cburnworth]

Just wow. I always went under the assumption that if I am on a persons property(doesn't matter what I am doing) and get hurt I pay for it myself. If I am helping out on some work & the person then offers to pay for it that is fine, but I would never expect the person to cover the bill for my own stupidity or carelessness.
Again another part of life government doesn't need to be involved in!!!!!

 

[windingwinds]

My husband wrecked his dirtbike on my in-laws place about 5 yrs ago. We made the mistake of telling the E.R. the location of the wreck. Our insurance company got ahold of that information and sent us multiple papers attempting to force us to sue my in-laws. While they cannot force you to sue, they can decide NOT to COVER the FEES of any accident. We did not sue my in-laws but we sure did learn a lesson about insurance companies.

This "new liability" form will not help anyone. The landowner is assuming a huge risk by allowing anyone to come onto their property for ANY reason. A lawyer can take that form and turn it into a nightmare for a property owner, say there was a dip in the land and the hunter tripped and shot himself (walking with a loaded gun) the lawyer could make a case that the property owner did not warn the hunter of such a dangerous spot on the property. If the hunter is not able to get his insurance company to pay for any costs with any accidents, and is forced to choose between medical bills that are huge and paying for his own house and bills................what do you think he or she is going to do? They will let their insurance sue landowner's insurance. Good possibility that the landowner's insurance will drop the landowner's coverage after that. And no piece of paper is going to stop this.
Unless we get better insurance lawsuit regulations.