Attractive Nuisance Laws – Also read John Davis’s resignation letter – The Town doesn’t care

 

 

You may have noted in one of Joe’s articles that he spoke of “Attractive Nuisance Laws” which relate to children.  To give you an idea of what your Town Council has done by not following the laws relating to Condemned buildings, some of which include wells, I am herewith providing you with such valuable information.  If your Children are hurt, you may sue the property owner, but also the Town of White Springs for not following ordinances relating to condemnation:

 

What is considered an Attractive Nuisance in FL (Which also follows Common Law):

First of all, Statute 768.075Immunity from liability for injury to trespassers on real property is applicable to any uninvited person or trespasser who comes on to one’s property.  Florida’s statute goes farther in explaining that there is immunity especially if the trespasser is under the influence.   However, although the property owner has no obligation to warn a potential trespasser of existing dangers, the property owner may not recklessly place objects or obstacles which may endanger a trespasser.

 

There is a major exception and that pertains to the Common Law Doctrine of Attractive Nuisance.   If the conditions below are met, the property owner will be libel.  If the property owner is sued and the Town is responsible for not abiding by the Town regulations relative to the many buildings which are condemned or falling apart in White Springs, either the injured party will sue both the owner and the Town or the injured party will sue the Owner who in turn will sue the Town because the Town is responsible for maintaining the Land Regulation Ordinances.

 

·       The Owner and the Town are aware of a dangerous condition on the property, such as open wells, fallen in porches, etc.

·       The dangerous condition is known or should be known by a property owner or the Town as presenting unreasonable risk of harm to children which may trespass on the property

·       The child does not realize the dangerous risk of the condition

·       The owner fails to take reasonable steps to dispose of the danger or to protect the child; And the Town Council chose to not abide by the Land Development Regulations and notifying owners of the dilapidated conditions of certain buildings and other man-made obstacles or that the building should be condemned.

·       The dangerous condition enticed the child to enter onto the property

·       The child was hurt or died as a result

Understand that the Florida attractive nuisance doctrine applies only to man-made objects.  It does not apply to anything created by nature such as a stream, lake or tree unless there is something man-made in relationship that would attract a child to trespass.

Dangerous animals can be considered attractive nuisances also, if they are being knowingly housed in an area that is attractive and accessible to children.  Even docile animals can pose a liability if they attract children to a dangerous area or obstacle such as an electrified fence or a back yard where there is an open well.

 

Joe has  discussed these matters with our Town many times over, especially with respect to the buildings which finally were demolished by Scott Gay and the Hillhouses.  The Town would rather consider Joe Griffin a domestic terrorist rather than realize that it is the fault of the Town if a child is hurt because he or she enters a property which is dangerous.  Such properties even exist on the sidewalk to nowhere.  Shame on you White Springs.  If you followed the law and applied the ordinances as they should be, not only would there be a more beautiful White Springs, but you would receive money for non-compliance.  Perhaps then, you would not have to charge so much to the Citizens of White Springs.

 

At one time we suggested a fire assessment for unoccupied buildings and land in White Springs.  We also suggested that each of these unoccupied residences be charged a minimum sewer and water fee by reason that the pipes run by these properties.  That is what other cities do.  But no, you would rather stick to your lawlessness and it is obvious that you just beg to be sued by someone.  But if it is a child; you will lose.

Not only that, but the Town owns the Sidewalks.  Recently, the Town had the prisoners clean the grass from the cracks.  What this did was make prominent cracks which one could trip over.  There are also Tree roots which have heaved up sidewalks and there are sidewalks that heave up all by themselves.  These sidewalks have never been maintained.  Recently, Joe and I were enroute to the sidewalk to nowhere to go to the Bridge Street Café and both tires on his wheelchair went flat because of the uneven sidewalk.  Yet, if he operates his wheelchair on the Street, he will be stopped by the police, or has been in the past, citing that there is a sidewalk he should use.

I understand the owner of the Bed & Breakfast, fell on the sidewalk and broke her arm.  She did not complain to the Town as I understand, but I wonder what will happen if one of her Bed & Breakfast Guests has the same fate?

 

Karin for the blog

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *