Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It may differ by city, and there might be some exceptions in protected areas, but otherwise there's nothing illegal about leaving poison on your property.

If a human wanders onto your property, eats rat poison, and dies, it wouldn't be your problem. Same applies here. This isn't an automatic, unmanned trap designed to harm trespassers.

The only thing the homeowner did wrong was label the poison. The entire point of poison is to be discreet. The last thing you need is some r-slur facebook mom or redditor posting it and getting a horde of pibble lovers swarming you.

Someone in that thread mentioned grill brush bristles, which is really fricking smart.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

no, this is absolutely illegal. let’s say a stupid 4 year old wanders onto your own and drinks the water. Or a dog wanders onto your lawn and drinks it. And then dies or is harmed. I’m not sure if it’s a boobytrap by the law wherever but it is and should be illegal.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I genuinely can't tell if you're trolling right now.

Like I said, it's the same principle as rat poison. If some r-slur wanders onto your property, eats it, and dies, it's not your legal responsibility. If you put poison in a cup of water next to the road in a residential area that would be a different story, but having it in a dog bowl makes your intentions clear. If a 4 year old dies from poison on your property, the parents or guardians of the child would be the ones charged.

Non-native animals (like dogs) are fair game to kill however you want if they're on your property. No different than rats. As long as you aren't intentionally torturing them you're fine.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

my sense is that this is on a part of her small suburban piece of land next to her house. And that it is accessible from the street, and not like in a backyard. Given that, an outdoor house cat or a dog or much less likely a kid could wander over and drink it.

If some r-slur wanders onto your property, eats it, and dies, it's not your legal responsibility.

legally this is not true at all. β€œsomeone can rob your house, trip over a cable, and sue you for it”. Let’s say your yard has a big 30 foot deep concrete pit in it and the neighborhood r-slur wanders in and dies. That’s absolutely your liability in America.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

β€œsomeone can rob your house, trip over a cable, and sue you for it”

Maybe in some backwards shithole like California

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

and also most states

If a property owner knows there are frequent trespassers on his property, he can be held liable for any injuries caused by unsafe conditions on the property if: the condition was created or maintained by the owner, the condition is likely to cause serious injury or death or if the owner failed to exercise reasonable care to notify trespassers of the dangerous conditions and risks involved.

The rules change when young children are the trespassers. In the case of a child wandering onto the property without proper authorization, the property owner still has a duty to ensure the property is safe. The reason for this exception is that children are often times naΓ―ve to dangers on property and can in fact by lured to investigate a dangerous condition such as an abandoned well or maybe a big piece of machinery. Such potential hazards are known as β€œattractive nuisances.” As such, a property owner has the duty to inspect the property to ensure there are no potentially unsafe conditions that may attract children.

it’s also maybe a booby trap

https://definitions.uslegal.com/b/booby-traps/

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

he can be held liable for any injuries caused by unsafe conditions on the property if: the condition was created or maintained by the owner, the condition is likely to cause serious injury or death or if the owner failed to exercise reasonable care to notify trespassers of the dangerous conditions and risks involved.

There's a sign above the bowls indicating poison

The reason for this exception is that children are often times naΓ―ve to dangers on property and can in fact by lured to investigate a dangerous condition such as an abandoned well or maybe a big piece of machinery. Such potential hazards are known as β€œattractive nuisances.” As such, a property owner has the duty to inspect the property to ensure there are no potentially unsafe conditions that may attract children.

Children are no more likely to drink from that dog bowl than any other dog bowl.

Without knowing the local laws, everything the homeowner is doing here is legal.

Nothing you mentioned said anything about poison, either. Like I keep saying, this is no different than leaving out rat poison.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It is an or, any one clause applying is enough, not all three, so it doesn’t need to be not notified if another applies. And it being a child removed the exclusion of providing information.

Children are no more likely to drink from that dog bowl than any other dog bowl.

again killing a neighbors pet for walking onto your yard is just not legal lol

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

again killing a neighbors pet for walking onto your yard is just not legal lol

It literally is though.

Unleashed animals fall under the same category as invasive species. If it's not on the owner's property, it can be assumed feral and killed.

If your heckin' holesum pupperino is unleashed and enters my property, I'm going to shoot it, and I'll have no legal repercussions for doing so.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.