Is it really "trespassing"?

Trains Magazine General Discussion
1

In another post, someone was criticizing two teens who were killed on the tracks for “tresspassing”.

And indeed that’s always what one hears, that RR property is private property, and that tresspassers will be prosecuted.

But, since the RR’s are private entities (rather than governmental) that means that they must comply with the law (rather that create it or make it up as they go along)

And in my community, for trespassing to be prosecuted, then a lawful notice must be clearly posted, where potential violaters would be reasonably forwarned.

where I live there are only ‘no tresspassing’ signs around the perimeter of major yards, and on either side of RR bridges, to keep people from crossing over the bridge.

there are no signs posted along the right of way, and surprisingly there are no longer even the prohibitive cables stretched across the entrance to RR service roads that run along the side of the right of ways, that in my youth all were in place with ‘no tresspassing’ signs hanging in the middle.

So, while I would say that a pedestrian would have to heed the verbal warning to ‘leave private property’ if verbally instructed to do so by a rail employee, up until that point I don’t believe that a hiker has any more responsibility to recognize one private entities unposted property boundry, anymore than anyone elses.

In fact, since the RR does post ‘no tresspassing’ notices at yard entrances and bridge approaches, it could be argued that they condone encroachment in the areas where no such posting has been made.

One cannot assume that the general public are mind readers

2

You know, although these people many not have been treuspassing persay, they really should know better than to walk where the trains run.

I have treusspassd- you know me- “Mr CN” but I never once endangered myself by putting me in the path of a train, whether I hearr it, or see it, or neither of the two.

3

Well in theory, it is their private property because they have rights to that land and the iron and the wooden ties and all the screws and ballast it’s all theirs

BUT

in reality, can you really own something that you can’t control?

I mean if I had a far away island, and I never even saw it in my life, sure I own it legally, but my ownership makes absolutley no difference because on that far away island animals do what they want, and it is possible that some people go there to explore or whatever.

In reality, what is the real material difference between owning something and not owning it in case this object is far away from your reach and control?
Well in reality, there is no difference, because the material object itself does not have a mouth to say who is its owner, it just stays there laying on the ground.

One place where ownership of your far away object really has some affect on the actual real world is the court, so your ownership gives you the power to sue someone who does something with that object that you don’t approve.

In other words, RR owns the rails in court, but out there in the wild where only animals live, its just a bunch of metal and wood, out of reach and out of sight of the legal owner.

As metal wires are the medium of electricity, so are human minds the medium of ownership and other social values. These values do not fly in the air invisible, they exist where human mind exists.

4

Its true, I know around here, even down by the UP building downtown Colorado Springs, the “no Tresspassing” sign is only near the yard and north of the UP building. They sould have to post it everywhere for them to say they will prosacute.

5

Ignorance or stupidity are frequently used as excuses for all sorts of things, like tresspassing. “I didn’t know I was not supposed to be on the tracks” is just plain stupid. This would be the same as “Gee, I didn’t know that I should not be playing with matches” and then start a fire that kills people. Yes, little kids may have an excuse that would be somewhat valid, but sixteen and eighteen year olds should know much better by that age. PERIOD.

6

Hey, I agree completey with you there…the act of going out and carelessly walking down a ROW, is incredibly stupid. they got what they deserved.

But the topic made me ponder…one always hears that the RR is private property, and that violaters will be prosecuted…one almost comes to take that for granted.

But, I cannot call the cops everytime some 6 year old steps on my front lawn, and expect to have the kid hauled off either.

As a land owner, I have responsibilities that I must fulfill first in providing reasonable notice.

Without clear posting, a “perpetrator” always has the easy out of claiming “hey, I didn’t know” and if the property owner failed to take reasonable steps ahead of time to communicate that message, he cannot assume that people can read his mind.

The exception to this would be, for repeated violations by the same individual.

If I call the cops today, and they come out, forcibly eject someone from my property today, but explain that without a clear posting I cannnot prosecute…then the same individual comes out tomorow and pulls a repeat…I can call the cops then, and since the individuals name is part of the record from the day previous, I can then establi***hat he has been duely warned, and chose wittingly to violate what he knew to be a no trespassing area… and the fact that he returned anyway makes it a prosecutable act.

Which is why I always respond with obediance when asked to get off rail property. The way I figure it, anytime they are willing to let me leave without writi

7

Trespassing? Technically, yes. Prosecutable, unfortunately not in this day and age. What we, as railfans along with the railroads, need to be willing to do, as responsible citizens, is help educate people as to the safe way to interact with the railroad world. I know that I can’t teach everyone around me but if I can educate one person, that’s a step in the right direction.

8

TheAntiGates, I agree. When my dad and I were “harrassed” in Wisconsin, we did leave the propertey and did NOT come back. We stood and took ppictures from the SIDEWALK across the street, and the CN GUY could not do a thing about it, becasue we were on public propertey. However, he was FULLY within his rights to call the police the first time we ignored the POSTED no-treusspassing notice.

The fact of the matter, is, peopel need to understand WHAT railroad tracks ARE for, and that there will be consequences if they dissrupt railroad activities. There should some judgement from these people.

9

A no trespassing sign is only as good as the effort used to enforce it. The railroads own way too much land, mostly in rural areas, to waste resources patrolling it.

The signs serve as a gesture of good faith warning people that it is dangerous to be near the tracks. This helps limit the railroad’s liability in the event of an accident. Kind of a “we told you so”, and if you continue, you do so at your own risk.

As railfans, we have a pretty good idea of proper and safe behavior near the tracks. It’s the non railfans of the world that need more education.

10

Trespassing? Yes. We have to use our heads here. It is only common sence not to walk down RR tracks as in the case of the afore mentioned individuals who lost their lives. And concerning “railfanning”, a question has always popped into my head. Where exactly does RR property start on a ROW or yard when fences, gates or signs have not been used?

Respect, respect, respect ! I have been chasing trains for years and when around working yards its amazing how many times permission has been granted for me to enter the yard limits just from asking. No, it will not happen every time, but it is well worth asking.

11

Do you have a “No Trespassing” sign on the door to your home, and one posted every 50’ around the perimeters of your property, at eye level, in safety yellow, orange or red?
If not, then by this line of reasoning, you don’t have the right to enforce any “no trespassing” ordinances…I can come and go as I please in and out of your home…

Of course you don’t, because it is assumed that every one already knows that your home is private property…courts have upheld this concept, and applied the same idea to railroad tracks, that by their very nature of what they are and what they do, any reasonable person(by the legal definition of reasonable) would know railroad tracks are dangerous places and private property.

[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates

In another post, someone was criticizing two teens who were killed on the tracks for “tresspassing”.

And indeed that’s always what one hears, that RR property is private property, and that tresspassers will be prosecuted.

But, since the RR’s are private entities (rather than governmental) that means that they must comply with the law (rather that create it or make it up as they go along)

And in my community, for trespassing to be prosecuted, then a lawful notice must be clearly posted, where potential violaters would be reasonably forwarned.

where I live there are only ‘no tresspassing’ signs around the perimeter of major yards, and on either side of RR bridges, to keep people from crossing over the bridge.

there are no signs posted along the right of way, and surprisingly there are no longer even the prohibitive cables stretched across the entrance to RR service roads that run along the side of the right of ways, that in my youth all were in place with ‘no tresspassing’ signs hanging in the middle.

So, while I would say that a pedestrian would have to heed the verbal warning to ‘leave private property’ if verbally instructed to

12

AG -

I’m not sure what state you live in (don’t say “altered” either…lol…) but in many states railroad ROWs are removed from the posting requirements as the presence of railroad tracks and structures (bridges, culverts,

13

Ed, I believe you are missing (perhaps intentionally so) a fundemental aspect of my argument.

Correct, I don’t have the signs posted… THEREFORE, in the event some strangers “violated” my property boundries, I have every right to ask/insist/order them to leave, and if they fail to comply I can call the law and have the offenders forcibly removed from my property.

But, the cops are not going to arrest the perpetrators for trespassing unless I have signage similar in concept to what you outline.

Forcibly eject the intruders? you bet. But arrest them? not unless it can be proven that the people in question were knowingly violating a restricted private area.

And absent signage, how are you going to establish “tresspassing” from “lost”?

Lets take it a step further: Suppose I am walking down a mainline, then follow a siding that leads into a RR yard.

At the yard boundry is a “No trespassing beyond this point” sign.

So, I turn a 180 and am walking away from the yard (still on the track) in obeyance of that sign. Do you think there is a jury in the land that would convict me for tresspassing af

14

“Should” know better? yes, that is a fair argument, but “should” versus “don’t” or “can’t” is not a winning scenario.

Stupidity is not against the law…If it was, you’d have to lock everyone up who voted for Kerry…[:o)]

Before any flames fly from that last one, it was just an abstraction on my part to illustrate that people having differing views are gonna have differing opinions in what constitutes “stupid”

15

I think that the term ‘obvious’ is a subjective concept, the way you use it.

Bear in mind that the RR’s do post “NT” signs in some areas… I’m not a lawyer, so I forget what the slick legal eagle term is, but by establishing a rule of authority for some areas, is there not an implied level of indifference to adjacent areas not so posted?

For instance a city park might have a sign that says "pets must be kept out of pavillion and restroom buildings " does that not imply that taking pets onto lawns and pastures is permited?

16

Keeping safe is one thing, and it is good to keep away from the rails or at least keep your eyes and ears open.

But for example, I use this old non-active tracks as my walkway whenever I go to the center of the town. Technically I am walking on property of railroads, and it is tresspassing, but
I don’t see anybody present that would apply this law on me, and laws don’t fly in the air, they are there where there is a force that can impose them on me.
The track is non-active, and I’m not endangering anybodies life, or my own, nor am I upsetting anybody because there is nobody there. I care for human beings, not for legal papers.

17

The simple answer is “not necessarily”. It depends upon the law in the particular jurisdiction, but in general the criminal law is to be narrowly construed to accomplish its purpose. It is not construed by “Implication” as you suggest. Merely not posting areas does not imply legal permission to trespass.

LC

18

[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates

Ed, I believe you are missing (perhaps intentionally so) a fundemental aspect of my argument.

Correct, I don’t have the signs posted… THEREFORE, in the event some strangers “violated” my property boundries, I have every right to ask/insist/order them to leave, and if they fail to comply I can call the law and have the offenders forcibly removed from my property.

But, the cops are not going to arrest the perpetrators for trespassing unless I have signage similar in concept to what you outline.

Forcibly eject the intruders? you bet. But arrest them? not unless it can be proven that the people in question were knowingly violating a restricted private area.

And absent signage, how are you going to establish “tresspassing” from “lost”?

Lets take it a step further: Suppose I am walking down a mainline, then follow a siding that leads into a RR yard.

At the yard boundry is a “No trespassing beyond this point” sign.

So, I turn a 180 and am walking away from the yard (still on the track) in obeyance of that sign. Do you think th

19

Yes, I certainly agree that if somebody “can’t” understand that being on RR property (particularly around trackage) is dangerous to ones life and health (such as would be the case if the individual in question were mentally deficiant) then they can not be held accountable, but to the best of my knowledge this was not the case in Wisconsin related to this incident. Oh, by the way, if you look at Preident Bush’s latest approval ratings, it is obvious that at least some of those who voted for him (and that does not include me) in the last election no longer approve of his performance and would likely not have voted for him if they knew what they know now.

20

AntiGates…
No, not being obtuse…LC answered your implied question.

What I can tell you is in Texas, the courts do not recognize the lost excuse as a valid reason for being on private property with out an invite.

As was explained by Judge Poe in the last case I was involved in…“The burden rest upon you, the individual, to know where you are.”

It is not the land owner’s responsibility to keep you out or warn you, except in the instance where a danger exist that is not obviously or easily seen, such as abandoned mine shafts, old wells, unsafe or closed bridges…and then only to the point that a warning of some type be posted, one a reasonable person would recognize.

In other words, it is your responsibility not to trespass, not the land owners to warn you that you are, or to keep you from doing so.

Intent plays no part in it, the very fact that you are walking on the tracks negates any valid excuse as to intent…if you don’t work for the railroad, and you are on railroad property, your intent is obvious…after all, railroad tracks are not easily confused with sidewalks, and I personally have never met anyone who got “lost” in the middle of North Yard.

The presence of the tracks themselves serves as sufficient warning that you are not on public property.

Any type of signage from that point on is moot, except as noted above to warn of unseen dangers.
Ed