Top Court To Hear Arguments This Week In Paddling Lawsuit

[Western-Mass-Bass]

12 hours ago, slonezp said:

If the boat was puking up clouds of smoke, it shouldn't matter. There is no law protecting wildlife from vehicle emissions.

Valid point.

[Western-Mass-Bass]

2 hours ago, Western-Mass-Bass said:

14 hours ago, slonezp said:

If the boat was puking up clouds of smoke, it shouldn't matter. There is no law protecting wildlife from vehicle emissions.

Valid point. But there are regulations against vehicles in forest situations as far as spillage, such as two stroke dirt bikes . Atleast I think there is.

 

[James Tongas]

Read the  lower  court cases before going off on this being a frivolous lawsuit.   

Phil Brown chose spring high water season to paddle though this stretch.   Even the NY State DEC set up a .8 mile carry on state land to bypass this waterway.    .   Most of the year, a large portion of this stream is completely un-navigable even in tiny kayaks.   As the dissenting  judges noted,  this is a far more complex case than a one paragraph article can cover.   

The ruling  will affect land  owners rights on even the smallest trickles of water though all sorts of private land

[Sam]

 Issue: Is it legal to walk, run, bike, drive, paddle, fish or run a boat on or over property of others if:

1. there are no trespassing signs; or

2. if there are no trespassing signs posted?

Do homeowners rights extend skyward or are they just for the actual land?

I side with the homeowners, if they have No Trespassing signs posted.

 

[buzzed bait]

17 hours ago, James Tongas said:

Read the  lower  court cases before going off on this being a frivolous lawsuit.   

Phil Brown chose spring high water season to paddle though this stretch.   Even the NY State DEC set up a .8 mile carry on state land to bypass this waterway.    .   Most of the year, a large portion of this stream is completely un-navigable even in tiny kayaks.   As the dissenting  judges noted,  this is a far more complex case than a one paragraph article can cover.   

The ruling  will affect land  owners rights on even the smallest trickles of water though all sorts of private land

first off, welcome!  

I say frivolous because the court already made a decision and now they're wasting tax dollars to try and overturn said decision.  Now they open up the opportunity for some other moron to sue the landowner for creating a public nuisance:

"Supreme Court granted summary judgment to Brown and the State, declaring the waterway navigable-in-fact and the owners' efforts to deter access a public nuisance." 

 

If you go on to read the facts of navigable waters that Scott F provided (http://www.nationalrivers.org/river-fact-or-fiction.html) it says that navigable in fact means navigable in law (doesn't mean time of year, means when there is enough water there to pass through, it is navigable).  So again, this is why I say frivolous.