Making me the bad guy

I have been mowing a large city corner fenced lot for years. This year I noticed a ball field has been set up. The kids stopped playing base ball because of the weeds. Now the weeds are cut down the playing has resumed. I got a call from the owner saying the city wants the gate locked, and no trespassing signs put up. The owner lives out of town, and wants me to install a lock back on the gate, and put up signs. If I don't do it someone else will. I have many fields kids dig holes, make bicycle jumps and just tear up the land scape, but all these kids want to do is play ball. All I can figure is, someone in one of the apartments on two sides of the lot complained of the noise. Life in the city. Stan

In today's world if one of the kids get hurts while playing ball they'll be suing the owner big time.

You can choose not to do it, cant stop the guy but do not have to participate if you do not believe it is right.

I get busy when I do not want a job.

I would let somebody else be the bad guy.

Under what LAW, ZONING, or ORDINANCE is the city requiring there to be a lock on the gates and no trespassing signs put up?? I'd get some background on the reasons behind it, and maybe let the kids know the city is behind it so they can get their parents (hopefully they have some...) involved if the owner doesn't care if the kids play ball there.

Stuff like this is why I moved to the country.

You nailed the root of the issue

You can't blame the property owner. If one of those kids got hurt the parents would sue.

I wouldn t do it. Let the owner find someone else to be the bad guy.

Don't refuse to do it, as David G said, your too busy for that kind of work. gobble

So the kids just want to be kids and play ball. And the city would prefer them joining gang's and getting in trouble? What a backwards way of thinking. Sure glad I don't live there.

Do what you need to do but I would be too swamped to have the time. No way am I going to help ruin a child's life.

Here is the flip side.There is a dam and what is left of an old mill just down the road from me,growing up the locals used to fish and swim there plenty of things to avoid to keep from getting hurt.As population in our area increased people continued used the area,back in the early 90's a kid dove off the dam and hit some big rocks in the water below killed him.Family of the kid filed a lawsuit cost the owner big $$$ even though he had some insurance basically court said since he knew people were using it he was responsible for what went on there.Its been an on going battle ever since for the owners of that property which as changed several times to keep people out.Couldn't give me that property but landowners have the right to limit the use of their property to those people that they want there and keep others off.

I think this is in California; logic and common sense is lacking there.

I dont see a bad guy in this situation. The owner wants his property secured, reason is unimportant to me, and wants to hire me to do the job. I would schedule it then send him an invoice and a key.

Is it worth loosing a long time customer over a minor issue? I doubt you will have any problems. If you do, you can always explain that you are not the owner.

Good lord, people! This is PRIVATE PROPERTY!

The owner is not trying to ruin the kids' fun or drive them to joining gangs.

THE CITY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!

The owner is simply trying to PROTECT HIMSELF. His property is an "attractive nusiance."

"The attractive nuisance doctrine applies to the law of torts, in the United States. It states that a landowner may be held liable for injuries to children trespassing on the land if the injury is caused by an object on the land that is likely to attract children. The doctrine is designed to protect children who are unable to appreciate the risk posed by the object, by imposing a liability on the landowner."

Kid gets a skinned knee, the owner is liable. Kid gets a splinter, the owner is liable. Kid gets beaned in the head with a ball, the owner is liable. Kid gets clobbered by a bat, the owner is liable.

I'm sure the landowner would gladly let the kids play if his very existence weren't put at risk by the mere presence of the kids on the property.

It is possible in a a case like this to work it out for the benefit of all. It can be arranged so the owner is not liable for injuries on his property if he allows the public to use it. It happens with hiking trails that cross private property all the time. In my town there is a field where the kids teams play baseball that is privately owned. I don't know what or how it is done but if the town and owner get together it can be worked out for the benefit of all. I would be "too busy" to have time to install the lock too. Also it is likely that the kids will find a way around the lock. There weren't many fences that could keep us kids from getting over, under, or through them as I remember when I was a kid. Maybe that's all the owner needs is something to show he tried or is trying to keep out the kids. After all he put up a fence with a lock and he can't help it if they got through.

I presume you are being hired by land owner to keep this lot mowed, and not just donating your time and mower to do it. With that said, I don't see how the city has the right to enforce the property to be locked and posted no trespassing. The owner should legally have the right to leave the gates unlocked and allow who ever he wants on the property. If I was you, I would talk to land owner. Let him know what your feelings are. Let the land owner know the city is being a bully on this issue, and that he can make a stand if he wants to. If you feel strong enough about the situation, I would refuse to lock gate and put up signs. No need for you to be the bad guy here. There might be a liability issue here for the land owner, but that is his problem, not yours or the city's. The city is sticking there nose in on something they shouldn't in this case.

(quoted from post at 06:57:30 05/29/19)I don't see how the city has the right to enforce the property to be locked and posted no trespassing.

Click to expand...

It goes back to "attractive nuisance." The city is obligated to identify and mitigate attractive nuisances as much as any property owner is. Very likely in the city building codes.

Long and short of it is, anybody gets hurt, everybody gets sued. Property owner for "negligence." City for letting the property owner be "negligent."

I see it all the time on the news. Somebody gets hurt or killed, and the obligatory "man on the street" interviewee blubbering, "Why didn't the city do something about this?"

Stan, where you are located do you not even have to have a contractors licence to mow the weeds? In a lot of states things are different than there. I would just say sorry but I am not licenced to do that. They are probablt even going to want a permit to do that work and at your age just tell him that you are not licenced for that and you can not aford to go thru the hasel of getting that licence-permit to do it. Find someone that does have the proper paper work as if you would do that without the proper paper work if it would not meet the city's requirement you could be lible for any lawsuit that might come about. I dought you would have all the paper work to go wire a house for him on that property and the lock would fall under same rulls. So if you did it and still some kid got in and hurt you could loose your home. He should understand that. You are allowed to do the mowing but nothing else. I seem to thimk a different taw than a lot of the posters on here. Ohio or Indiana would not even thing about requireng that but the west coast is different. Most areas around here you don't even need a contractors licence torepair-remodel a house. Just perhaps landowner a building permit, possibly not even that. You know how it would be if he asked you to build a house on the property, this is just the same.