Private roads (was: Re: More New Signs)
Allston Parking Refugee
> Unfortunately, private road is misleading....most of the time you'd
> think private road means you can't drive on it if you don't live there
> or aren't visiting someone there. However Campus Drive on Duke
> University is listed as a "private road", even though parts of it are
> used much like any other city street in Durham (between Alexander
> Drive and Swift Ave for example). Entrances to subdivisions where the
> developer also built the road also sometimes have "private road", even
> though the general public may use them.
What is the typical legal status of private roads in various U.S.
states? Are you allowed to drive on them unless they or posted "No
Trespassing" or you have been asked to leave by a landowner or an
authorized representative? Or are you just supposed to know which
private roads are ok (shopping centers, etc), and which aren't (dirt
roads where you have no official reason for being there)? Are the
rules different if you're walking?
-Apr
Florence Henderson Had A Mullet
(Allston Parking Refugee) said:
>What is the typical legal status of private roads in various U.S.
>states? Are you allowed to drive on them unless they or posted "No
>Trespassing" or you have been asked to leave by a landowner or an
>authorized representative?
Ooh, an Allowed Cloud!
Seriously, It's always been my understanding that common law prevails.
If it's, say, a one-lane driveway, then you can't just use it without
permission. If it's an actual thru street, then you can use it. At least
that's how I see things. These days, however, the rights of rich
landowners and corporations are often assumed to take priority over my
rights and your rights, so I can't guarantee that this will still hold
true.
John David Galt
> What is the typical legal status of private roads in various U.S.
> states? Are you allowed to drive on them unless they or posted "No
> Trespassing" or you have been asked to leave by a landowner or an
> authorized representative? Or are you just supposed to know which
> private roads are ok (shopping centers, etc), and which aren't (dirt
> roads where you have no official reason for being there)? Are the
> rules different if you're walking?
The general rule is the same as if it were a store parking lot or the
driveway in front of most houses: Technically only the owners/renters
of property on that street (or property that comes with an easement
allowing access via that street), or their visitors/guests, may use
the private street, and if you're challenged and can't name the person
or business you're visiting you can be asked to leave. On the other
hand, a police officer will usually not make the challenge unless your
presence there raises suspicion for some other reason, or one of the
owners complains.
The rule is the same for walking or any other mode of transport, except
that the owners may dictate the mode to be used if they feel like it.
Most (but not all) traffic laws don't apply to private property unless
the owner wants them to.
In most states, if a road is left open to the public for a long period
of time, the public become entitled to keep using it even though the
property owner may want to close it. But the details vary widely from
place to place. Ask a lawyer if you need to know for sure.
Any advice you get on Usenet is worth what you paid for it.
Seth Breidbart
Allston Parking Refugee <AllstonPar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>What is the typical legal status of private roads in various U.S.
>states?
It varies. Is there a gate? A sign? What state is it in? Is it in
a city or a rural area?
> Are you allowed to drive on them unless they or posted "No
>Trespassing" or you have been asked to leave by a landowner or an
>authorized representative? Or are you just supposed to know which
>private roads are ok (shopping centers, etc), and which aren't (dirt
>roads where you have no official reason for being there)? Are the
>rules different if you're walking?
Where I grew up (Bayside Heights, Queens, NY) the roads had been
private until WW II; they were on the route to Fort Totten, and to
keep them private (no easement) they had been closed for one day a
year. During WW II, the patriotic landowners (quoting from the
official history I read in elementary school, which doesn't mention
anything about who paid for repairs, etc.) deeded the roads to the
city to avoid interfering with military traffic.
Except for the one day per year of closure, the roads were clearly
open to all traffic.
Seth
Comrade Mister Yamamoto
So it just breaks down to using yr common sense, then, doesn't it. If a
private road is lined with SPLEEN eating repoobLIEcan Marsupials and
Doberman Booty Pinscers, then it behooves you to avoid it, if not, have
at it. Why would you want to bother with a private road anyway, unless
you actually had business along it?
--
Comrade Mister Yamamoto
http://mryamamoto.50megs.com
Allston Parking Refugee
> >states?
>
> a city or a rural area?
I'd like to know the answer for all cases, since I don't know what the
situation will be for roads I encounter in the future.
I think it's pretty obvious what the rules are if it says "No
Trespassing" or "Keep Out". But what if there's just a standard
street name sign, or a standard street sign that also includes the
text "PRIVATE WAY", or no sign at all? If you need to know the state,
let's start with New York and the six New England states, in urban and
rural areas, and let's say there's no gate.
> > Are you allowed to drive on them unless they or posted "No
> >Trespassing" or you have been asked to leave by a landowner or an
> >authorized representative? Or are you just supposed to know which
> >private roads are ok (shopping centers, etc), and which aren't (dirt
> >roads where you have no official reason for being there)? Are the
> >rules different if you're walking?
-Apr
Jeff W
news:<emfle0tnjmtqthfut...@4ax.com>...
I'm going to assume it differs by state too, but some places around
here, when they build a road and they dont' give to a county, it has a
blue private road sign next to the street name. Subdivisions build
their own roads and hang on to them for a while(which causes them to
suck). As far as I understand this, except for a very few signs,
there's no sticker on them so their not enforceable. And just like an
apartment complex cops need permission to patrol em.
I notice one 485 acre office park, only the speed limit signs are
enforcable(i don't know about the traffic signals), so if you know
what's up, which most people don't, i'd say these roads are lawless.
Tresspassing? I wish i knew about this. But this is just my
understanding locally
Arthur L. Rubin
> In most states, if a road is left open to the public for a long period
> of time, the public become entitled to keep using it even though the
> property owner may want to close it. But the details vary widely from
> place to place. Ask a lawyer if you need to know for sure.
My recollection is that, at least in California and Arizona, if the
road is open for one full year, it becomes "public". The owner
can still close it, unless the local authorities want to take
responsibility for maintaining it, but cannot make it "private"
again.
I don't know how the law distinguishes private roads from private
driveways, though, so there may be other restrictions.
--
This account is subject to a persistent MS Blaster and SWEN attack.
I think I've got the problem resolved, but, if you E-mail me
and it bounces, a second try might work.
However, please reply in newsgroup.
David S Chesler
> you actually had business along it?
Because it is part of a route from where you are to where you
want to be. Same as you'd want to bother with any other road.
We have a number of private roads to which the public has a right
of access here in New England, as APR must have observed. I think
I once read one description of what is the legal consequence, but
if I once I understood, I don't now. The only difference when
Sylvan Road in Woburn (MA Rt 38 to the Burlington line where it
becomes Beacon St) went from private to public is that the sign
that read "Private Way - Pass At Your Own Risk" came down. [Related
question, did that sign have any legal consequences? Related
related question, there was a fairly permanent sign on I-86 in
Connecticut, before it became I-84, that said "Road under
construction -- Pass at Your Own Risk" -- any consequences?]
When Summit Road, Merrimack, NH went from private to public, the
street lights became the responsibility of the town instead of
the condo development it principally serves.
I'd guess if the changes are that subtle, the consequences are
also fairly subtle.
--
- David Chesler <che...@post.harvard.edu>
Iacta alea est
Allston Parking Refugee
> The general rule is the same as if it were a store parking lot or the
> driveway in front of most houses: Technically only the owners/renters
> of property on that street (or property that comes with an easement
> allowing access via that street), or their visitors/guests, may use
> the private street, and if you're challenged and can't name the person
> or business you're visiting you can be asked to leave. On the other
> hand, a police officer will usually not make the challenge unless your
> presence there raises suspicion for some other reason, or one of the
> owners complains.
So the owner or a police officer can ask me to leave? And until I've
been asked to leave I'm not breaking any laws by using the road?
-Apr
Joe Bramblett, KD5NRH
news:pi58e05hre6hf70li...@4ax.com:
> Seriously, It's always been my understanding that common law prevails.
> If it's, say, a one-lane driveway, then you can't just use it without
> permission. If it's an actual thru street, then you can use it. At least
> that's how I see things.
We've got an interesting situation here, then; the road our rental house is
on is listed as a private road, but if you're willing to call the tire
tracks through a pasture that it becomes 'road,' then it is a through
street from one county road to another. There's a gate at the back end,
but lately it's open all the time. I have no idea what our (Texas) laws
say about it, but I suspect that if someone were to make a problem of
themselves, the landowner could have them served with a criminal trespass
notice and kept off the road.
John David Galt
>> The general rule is the same as if it were a store parking lot or the
>> driveway in front of most houses: Technically only the owners/renters
>> of property on that street (or property that comes with an easement
>> allowing access via that street), or their visitors/guests, may use
>> the private street, and if you're challenged and can't name the person
>> or business you're visiting you can be asked to leave. On the other
>> hand, a police officer will usually not make the challenge unless your
>> presence there raises suspicion for some other reason, or one of the
>> owners complains.
Allston Parking Refugee wrote:
> So the owner or a police officer can ask me to leave? And until I've
> been asked to leave I'm not breaking any laws by using the road?
You're probably technically trespassing, but it's unlikely that anything
will happen if you leave when asked.
Bill Mitchell
> question, did that sign have any legal consequences? Related
> related question, there was a fairly permanent sign on I-86 in
> Connecticut, before it became I-84, that said "Road under
> construction -- Pass at Your Own Risk" -- any consequences?]
>
I remember those signs on most if not all of the Interstates in
Connecticut back in the late sixties/early seventies. They included
the phrase "Road Legally Closed" and included a state statute number
(or similar code number).
Pete from Boston
Those appeared, I recall, at the beginning of any construction area. I
believe it said "Road Legally Closed - State Liability Limited." Perhaps
such liability restrictions are implicit now. In any case, at the young
age I was at the time, there was something very transgressive-feeling
about passing these signs. I thought at any moment the pavement would
run out and we'd be driving into a ditch.
Matt
> > Connecticut, before it became I-84, that said "Road under
> > construction -- Pass at Your Own Risk" -- any consequences?]
> >
>
> I remember those signs on most if not all of the Interstates in
> Connecticut back in the late sixties/early seventies. They included
> the phrase "Road Legally Closed" and included a state statute number
> (or similar code number).
In the mid/late 1980s they were replaced by "State Liability Limited"
signs.
There are none on the current reconstruction on US 6 in my town and I
suspect they're not used anymore since I don't actually recall seeing
any recently.
At the time of the first switch, the legislator who sponsored the
legislation explained the "Pass at your own risk" wasn't appropriate
since the state still accepted some liability, just not the same level
it would as if the road wasn't under construction.
For instance, the State & Towns have xx hours to respond to a
complaint, such as a pothole (48 hours I seem to recall?). During
that initial window it's a normal road hazard. After the 48(?) hour
window, it's negligence by the State for failing to repair it and you
can kindly submit your front end alignment bill to the state. I a
year and a half, you might actually get reimbursed.
Warning you the road is under construction, it's expected that you'll
anticipate things like potholes, raised manhole covers etc and don't
expect the same level of "road-worthiness"
David Chesler
No doubt that's the sign I remembered.
So what did it mean when a road was legally closed? Could Connecticut have
avoided liability by legally closing the entire state? Can you get a speeding
ticket for operating on a non-existent road, and so forth?
John F. Carr
The law on trespass in general -- though the details may vary -- says
it is illegal to enter another's property after being forbidden entry
or to remain on another's property after being ordered to leave. It
is NOT illegal as a general rule to be on private property without
an invitation.
I think "private way" is not the legal equivalent of "no trespassing",
and you are not breaking the law by driving onto a private road even
if you know that it is private.
(There is also a difference between civil and criminal trespass, which
isn't really relevant here.)
--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
Michael Jacobs
news:<nul8f0htnuemucdpc...@4ax.com>...
> Bill Mitchell wrote:
> > I remember those signs on most if not all of the Interstates in
> > Connecticut back in the late sixties/early seventies. They included
> > the phrase "Road Legally Closed" and included a state statute number
> > (or similar code number).
>
> Those appeared, I recall, at the beginning of any construction area. I
> believe it said "Road Legally Closed - State Liability Limited." Perhaps
> such liability restrictions are implicit now. In any case, at the young
> age I was at the time, there was something very transgressive-feeling
> about passing these signs. I thought at any moment the pavement would
> run out and we'd be driving into a ditch.
The backstory, IIRC, is that CT was not spending enough money on roads
maintenance and the potholes and rusty bridges were getting
horrendous. They had a bridge collapse, I think, with several
injuries and/or deaths. So, rather than fixing the problem, they
posted those signs as sort of a "pass at your own risk" warning so no
one would legally be able to sue the state for shoddy maintenance --
they had been forewarned.
Don't recall whether they finally got around to fixing those roads.
The CT interstate roads I've travelled on in the last few years have
been pretty good and I don't recall seeing those signs anymore.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
Eliyahu Rooff
"Michael Jacobs" <mjaco...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:tqcdf0t45kkk49kki...@4ax.com...
>
> The backstory, IIRC, is that CT was not spending enough money on
roads
> maintenance and the potholes and rusty bridges were getting
> horrendous. They had a bridge collapse, I think, with several
> injuries and/or deaths. So, rather than fixing the problem, they
> posted those signs as sort of a "pass at your own risk" warning so
no
> one would legally be able to sue the state for shoddy
maintenance --
> they had been forewarned.
>
Just out of curiosity, were there any court challenges to the
State's passing the buck there? At first blush, it would seem that
those signs shouldn't be of much more value than the waiver of
liability on the back of a carnival ticket.
Eliyahu
David S Chesler
news:<tqcdf0t45kkk49kki...@4ax.com>...
> The backstory, IIRC, is that CT was not spending enough money on roads
> maintenance and the potholes and rusty bridges were getting
> horrendous. They had a bridge collapse, I think, with several
> injuries and/or deaths. So, rather than fixing the problem, they
> posted those signs as sort of a "pass at your own risk" warning so no
> one would legally be able to sue the state for shoddy maintenance --
> they had been forewarned.
The Mianus River Bridge on I-95 in Greenwich collapsed in 1983. If
that's what you're remembering, that's well after when we saw those
signs. The first report I found on-web suggests that the cause was
a failure of inspection (not noticing that a pin/hanger had fallen
off) as opposed to what we'd normally think of as maintenance (as
in repaving, rather than applying patch compound to a pot hole.)
The interstates in question were not accidents waiting to happen.
Does such a sign really have any protective effect? The urban legend
is that such signs (like "Beware of Dog") may have the opposite effect
because they indicate that the party that put up the sign was aware
of the danger. (OTOOH, this week in Boston, where once again they're
trying to ban pit bulls, a building inspector got bit when he opened
a gate to a yard in spite of the "Beware of Dog" sign -- that sign
seems to be perfectly reasonable and warranted.)
Daniel R. Reitman
wrote:
>. . . .
>Where I grew up (Bayside Heights, Queens, NY) the roads had been
>private until WW II; they were on the route to Fort Totten, and to
>keep them private (no easement) they had been closed for one day a
>year. During WW II, the patriotic landowners (quoting from the
>official history I read in elementary school, which doesn't mention
>anything about who paid for repairs, etc.) deeded the roads to the
>city to avoid interfering with military traffic.
>Except for the one day per year of closure, the roads were clearly
>open to all traffic.
I understand that that is still the practice at Rockefeller Center.
Oregon also recognizes public prescriptive rights, and has gone so far
as to declare the entire ocean beach open to public access by
customary use. OTOH, private easements rarely are prescribed by the
public because very few of them are as public as Rockefeller Center or
in such a large network as a town in Queens.
Daniel Reitman
John F. Carr
Eliyahu Rooff <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[about "road legally closed"]
>Just out of curiosity, were there any court challenges to the
>State's passing the buck there? At first blush, it would seem that
>those signs shouldn't be of much more value than the waiver of
>liability on the back of a carnival ticket.
Governments get to unilaterally disclaim liability. The principle
is called "sovereign immunity."
Some signs remained up for many years after construction finished.
I heard that the Federal Highway Administration eventually pointed
out that if all their roads were closed, Connecticut had no need for
federal highway aid. Now there aren't so many signs.
--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
John Mara
"Eliyahu Rooff" <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:97iif0hgn75l0ukve...@4ax.com...
>
>
> Just out of curiosity, were there any court challenges to the
> State's passing the buck there? At first blush, it would seem that
> those signs shouldn't be of much more value than the waiver of
> liability on the back of a carnival ticket.
States have sovereign immunity. You can only sue a state to the extent that
it allows itself to be sued. Most states have some sort of claims act which
allows certain lawsuits. Connecticut's claims act may allow the state to
restrict its liability by posting signs.
John Mara