Trees are beautiful. They provide greenery to city landscapes, shade our yards and homes, and do that cool thing with oxygen and carbon dioxide. You know, keeping our planet alive.
But there is an indignant streak to trees. They can look pretty one second and, well, destroy your house the next, or fall into a road and cause an accident.
It’s okay if it happens to the other guy. But what if it happens to you, your house, or your car?
Welcome to the minefield of difficult to understand insurance laws, provider procedures, and crazy driving laws.
Don’t worry. We’ve got you covered.
“Thar she blows!” said no one as a tree toppled onto their house.
If a tree falls onto your property, damaging your home, you might breathe a sigh of relief. After all, you have homeowners insurance. But hold that sigh. Getting compensated might not be as easy as you think.
Trees are governed by a unique branch of law: tree law (pun intended). As Atlas Obscura notes, tree law is something of a gnarly, twisted set of laws that deal with strange circumstances and obscure instances.
They may not be the oldest laws in the world, but they are some of the more difficult to handle.
Tree Laws are Complicated
Tree laws are considered case laws, meaning they’re based on the outcomes of previous cases. They vary widely from state to state, but there are some commonalities.
One of these laws is that the owner of a tree is found where the trunk of the tree emerges from the ground.
This impacts your destroyed house in a few ways.
First, if the trunk was on your property, the city’s likely not going to reimburse you for the damages. However, you may have a case if you called the city to have the tree removed due to safety reasons and they never did.
Second, you’ll have to file an insurance claim with your provider. As the Insurance Information Institute notes:
“If a tree hits your home or other insured structure, such as a detached garage, your standard homeowners insurance policy covers the damage to the structure, as well as any damage to the contents.”
You should be covered. This is especially true if the fallen tree was due to a “perils” issue, like high winds or a storm.
If you get an award, how much will it be? Without knowing a specific situation, we can only speak to the average award, which is $4,110 according to Consumer Reports.
But not so fast.
Allstate writes that not all claims might be approved. The reason? If the damage was caused by negligence or lack of maintenance issue. If you knew the roots were bad and hadn’t tried to get the tree cut down, then you might not be approved.
When the Clash Between Neighbors Comes Down to a Loud Crash
Now, if it’s your neighbor’s tree, then you’re in luck.
Your standard homeowners policy should cover all tree damage, even if the tree is your neighbor’s. You may even get your deductible back, as your insurance company will go to your neighbor and their insurance company and get them to pay for damages.
However, the situation might be different if you want to sue your neighbor yourself.
See, we know that tree law is a bit of a gnarly, twisting set of roots. Delving into them is a bit like examining all the quirks surrounding the history of lawns.
Are there any specific laws that govern neighbor on neighbor tree crime?
Let’s take a look.
Statutory Tree Laws
Georgia has a Fallen Tree Responsibility Law which states that if you see a decaying or dangerous tree on your property, you must remove it. If it falls on another person or their property, you will be held liable. If that tree wasn’t decaying or dangerous? You’re free and clear according to Attorney R. Michael Coker.
Max Burbach, of Koley Jessen, writes the same thing about Iowa and Nebraska law. Unless the owner had “actual or constructive notice” that the tree was decaying and dangerous, they cannot be held liable for property damage.
“Knowing of a dangerous tree on your property and not doing anything about it is grounds for liability.”
On a larger scale, you have to prove this in liability court if you want to sue for damages.
What You Should Do When an Instance Occurs?
The process for filing a homeowners claim is different and more complicated than other pieces of property like cars.
All the usual parts apply:
Get a record of what happened
Talk to any witnesses
Take pictures of the damage
An additional step you might want to take when dealing with homeowners claims is to talk to a contractor to come in and assess the damage. They can provide an estimate which you can give the insurance company.
If the award comes back less than you want, you can call in other contractors to assess the damage and provide higher estimates.
Final Assessment
Trees hitting houses are nightmarish situations. There are insurance regulations, national laws, and state laws. There are tree lawyers, arboreal arbitrations, and negligence to prove.
It is little wonder that some people consider this a complicated and complex area of law. In the end, always know your own insurance plan, so there are no surprises.
Except for the tree. It’s such a rare occurrence, you wood not believe it.
Chris Tepedino is an insurance writer at InsuranceProviders.com. He likes making puns, financial automation, and free margaritas.
I happened upon an article about North Carolina residents who were being told not to wash their clothes in the city’s water.
It was reported that the water in a North Carolina town was- safe to drink, but clothes should not be washed in it.
In the article, I caught a strange phrase saying that: the water was “legally safe” to drink.
I just had to know, what makes water legally safe to drink?
What conditions would make water not legally safe to drink?
Let’s find out!
The Safe Water Drinking Act
Legally safe drinking water, in America, started with the Safe Water Drinking Act in 1974.
The Safe Water Drinking Act was established to set a standard on the quality of water. The laws under the Safe Water Drinking Act (SWDA) were designed to focus on regulations which covered water that would be used for drinking.
The standards set forth factors that would define what water is legally safe to drink. It ismore focused than the Clean Water Act, which was designed to keep all waters clean, and limit pollution in all waterways.
Brief History of the Safe Water Drinking Act
The originial SWDA, which was started in 1974, primarily focused on water treatment as a means to make drinking water safe.
In 1996, amendments were passed which expanded the original SWDA and protected drinking water from “source to tap”. It introduced methods for protecting water sources from pollution.
The 1996 Amendment:
Required community water systems to prepare annual reports.
Required that the EPA: conduct cost-benefit for all future standards set for drinking water.
Issued revolving funds for states to: upgrade drinking water infrastructure.
Strengthened protections against microbial contaminants
Required water system operators to become certified
Expanded consumer awareness of safe drinking water and water treatment operations
Assessed drinking water sources for contamination and threats to contamination
It’s true, most of the regulations regarding what is considered legally safe drinking water come from the 1996 amendments to the SWDA, and the standards haven’t changed much since that day.
However, new treatment standards for contamination are regularly being created.
What Water Does the SWDA Regulate?
The legally safe drinking water standard set forth in the SWDA regulates all drinking water facilities, and wells, that supply 25 or more individuals with drinking water.
It divides water facilities into three different categories and regulates each differently.
The three categories of drinking water facility are:
Community Water Systems
Non-Community Water Systems
Non-Transient Non-Community Water Systems
Transient Non-Community Water Systems
Of the three major types of drinking water systems, we will just focus on one. For the purposes of this article, we will be focusing on the “legally safe” drinking water standards set forth for: Community Water Systems.
Community Water Systems
A community water system, as set forth by the EPA, is a public water system which serves the same people year round.
These include the water systems you would find in the following:
Homes
Apartment Buildings
Condominiums
Cities
Small Towns
Mobile Home Parks
All of the water systems which supply legally safe drinking water to the above communities are governed by the same EPA standards.
How Drinking Water Standards are set:
Drinking water standards are set through a three step process…
Step 1: The EPA identifies contaminants which may adversely affect public health. Then it studies the contaminant to see if it should regulate.
Step 2: The EPA determines the maximum level of the contaminant that can be allowed in the drinking water for it to remain legally safe.
Step 3: The EPA specifies the level of contaminant allowed, and sets a standard for all drinking water facilities to follow.
What is Legally Safe Drinking Water?
Now we have an overview of who sets the standards for legally safe drinking water, as well as how those standards are regulated and set.
We can begin to look into what actually makes water legally safe to drink.
It’s a lot of information, so I can’t cover it all here. There are links to all of the sources below, and I encourage you to look into it further. But here is the gist of what defines legally safe drinking water.
6 Types of Regulated Drinking Water Contaminants
There are 6 types of contaminants which the EPA regulates in drinking water. These are:
Microorganisms
Disinfectants
Disinfection Byproducts
Inorganic Chemicals
Organic Chemicals
Radionuclides
Look, as you can imagine, there is no shortage of these contaminants and the acceptable levels of them. I highly recommend you download the PDF made by the EPA linked below.
It is too much information for one article, but it is definitely worth a look.
Here’s the deal, though it won’t all be covered here, I caught a few interesting facts in the EPA’s own writing that I wanted to touch on for a moment.
Fluoride in the drinking water
In my opinion, and the opinion of many people, there should not be fluoride in the drinking water.
Yet, almost all drinking water is treated with some level of fluoride!
Though many argue it is safe, the EPA limits its presence in water to 4mg/L, and even lists it as toxic in its own paper chart. So, why is it being added to the water?
I’m not going to get intoit right now, but it is an interesting topic onto itself. And, it is probably something that should not be being added to legally safe drinking water.
Glyphosate In the Drinking Water
Another odd note that I caught is the acceptable level of glyphosate in the drinking water. It wasn’t so much interesting to me because it was on the list, it was that the EPA labels the potential health hazards, saying it causes: “kidney problems; reproductive difficulties“.
Now, where did they get that information from?
Despite many people searching for Roundup exposure lawyers, Glyphosate is still touted as being totally safe. But, according to the EPA in standards set in 2009, glyphosate is more toxic than fluoride; only permitting 7mg/L to be present in drinking water.
One final point, Atrazine, another herbicide said to be completely safe, is listed here too. Saying that Atrazine causes” cardiovascular system and reproductive problems”
I really want to know where they are getting this information from and why it is so hard for the public to find.
What’s the Bottom Line on Legally Safe Drinking Water?
There are hundreds of potential contaminants in drinking water. It is a big task to limit, and determine, just how much of a contaminant should be allowed. This is just an overlay of the laws which determine if water is “legally safe” to drink.
All in all, apart from the adding of fluoride to drinking water, the EPA does a pretty good job regulating drinking water. From the EPA to the regulations of the USDA, it is not perfect, but it’s the government. What did you expect?
Did you catch anything odd in the EPA’s standards you wanted to point out?
Driving laws are now a huge part of keeping the roads safe. In the twenty-first century, there are laws and rules for every move we make behind the wheel. After all, car accidents top the death charts year after year. (See the top 10 worst driving states in America.)
From “no right turn on red” signs to speed limit signs and everything in between; there is a law for just about everything you can do in a vehicle. Check out sites like this one for more details on federal and state laws you may not be aware of.
I know I’m not the only one that has thought, “Who invented this law? It makes no sense.” If you’re with me, this article will show some of the oldest laws of the road and the history of where traffic laws were made and when they first became a part of our lives.
Sit back, keep your eyes on the road, and drive through the history of traffic laws.
In the Beginning…
The old German engineer, Karl Benz, developed the first motor vehicles for the world in 1886. By doing so, he ushered in a change more drastic than the world has ever seen. Once automobiles were made and owned by not only the wealthiest of people but by many others, roads and traffic began to become an issue.
To respond, in 1901, the state of Connecticut created the first statewide traffic laws. However, the laws only regulated vehicle speeds. The limits were 12 MPH on city streets and 15 MPH on country roads. (Quite primitive compared to our 75 MPH interstates). There were no other laws put into place.
Before 1930, there were thousands of cars on the road creating what would be one of the most dangerous times America had ever seen. According to the Detroit News, the early traffic years of the twentieth-century were lawless. It was a bloody mess that resulted in thousands of deaths just within the city limits.
Though there were now hundreds of thousands of cars flooding the streets of America, there were absolutely no street signs, street lights, road laws, traffic signals, brake lights, drunk driving laws, the list goes on. The streets were complete chaos.
Traffic Laws
In 1930, the three-way traffic light was introduced across the entire United States. As a matter of fact, the traffic light has hardly changed in the eighty-plus years it has existed. In 1930 it consisted of the same “green means go, yellow means slow, and red means stop,” that it contains today.
One of the biggest safety features and concerns of today’s vehicles is a seat-belt. You may be shocked to learn that the seat-belt was not developed until 1950! The 1950 Nash Airflyte was the first American made vehicle to contain safety-belts. Not even a year later, air-bags were also put into place, making what resembled the cars of the twenty-first century.
Perhaps the most important moment in traffic law history, the Department of Transportation was born in 1966. Their mission was to “Serve the United States by ensuring a fast, safe, efficient, accessible and convenient transportation system that meets our vital national interests and enhances the quality of life of the American people, today and into the future.”
This motto still rings true and is the reason our roads are safer than they have ever been. In a mere 30 years, the safety of roadways and interstates changed drastically thanks to traffic laws being implemented.
History of Drunk Driving Laws
Though many safety hazards have been avoided since the implementation of thousands of road laws, drunk driving is still one of the main concerns for the Department of Transportation and the rest of the United States. According to the DOT, there was an alcohol-impaired traffic fatality every 48 minutes in 2017.
In 1910, New York developed the first laws against driving after drinking. The punishment was a $1,000 fine and jail time. This began a revolution of trying to solve the problem that still persists today.
In 1936, Robert Borkenstein invented what he called the “drunkometer”. Borkenstein’s invention was a balloon looking device that determined if a driver was drunk or not. The device needed to be more precise, so in 1953 Borkenstein created the “breathalyzer” that we know today. It began with a .15 BAC being the legal limit, but in 1960 was determined to be too high and was brought to the .08 BAC level the U.S. uses today.
Drunk driving is still an issue, but laws will continue to get more and more strict. As of recently, there is now a “buzzed” driving limit of .05 BAC. With this law in effect, you can still be ticketed heavily even after drinking what may seem like a small amount of alcohol.
History of Traffic Laws in Conclusion
Thanks to the traffic and driving laws that have been implemented since 1901, the road is now safer than ever. Since Karl Benz brought us the motor vehicle in 1886, the roads have changed dramatically.
The DOT now keeps laws and rules up to date and will continue to do so in the future. The history of driving laws is a long one, but it is an important one in preserving the lives of thousands of people.
Author Bio: Ethan Lichtenberg is a writer for carinsurancecomparison.com. He enjoys Edgar Allan Poe and sneaking off to the beach every chance he gets.
Some of the worst wildfires on record have occurred in the last decade, especially in California. The Mendocino Complex Fire was the biggest in state history, burning 459,123 acres according to the Insurance Information Institute.
The Camp fire killed 88 people, with damages totaling between $1 billion and $1.5 billion in dollars. As the continued effects of climate change increase the risk of catastrophic fires, homeowners and insurers are scrambling to keep with damages past, current, and impending.
For many insurance companies, that means pulling out of the riskiest areas. This leaves homeowners (some of whom have been customers for decades) with none of the usual types of home insurance other than pricey, low-coverage state programs like the California FAIR Plan.
In mid-August, California’s Department of Insurance issued a report showing the increase. From 2017 to 2018, homeowners living in the ZIP codes most affected by wildfires saw a 10% increase in the chance of being dropped by their insurance companies.
Whether that pullback is temporary or permanent depends on what the state does next, Rex Frazier, president of the Personal Insurance Federation of California, told the New York Times.
A Dangerous Feedback Loop for Homeowners
With these increasing rates of dropped policies, alongside a drastic rise in premium costs and many homeowners facing policies on non-renewal, a crisis is impending.
Many homeowners fear a catastrophic domino effect. Inability to find insurance makes selling your house far more difficult. This is because it’s impossible for potential buyers to get a mortgage without homeowners insurance. This all culminates in increased property taxes and difficulty refinancing properties, causing financial anxiety across Northern California.
As Ricardo Lara, California’s insurance commissioner, told Christopher Flavelle in the New York Times, “This is really creating chaos.”
Homeowners feel they are being held hostage, legally obligated to obtain insurance but denied reasonable options. Rates are increasing sporadically across California, from hundreds to thousands of dollars per year according to some residents. In some cases, the rate increases have been upwards of $60,000 per year.
And as wildfires are not predicted to decrease anytime soon, future damage and higher premiums can only be expected to rise.
Many homeowners have been left wondering how this is legal. Nancy Kincaid, a spokeswoman with the California Department of Insurance, reports that insurance companies are required to submit a rate filing documenting losses experienced and expected payout. But with so much record-breaking damage, these cost increases are within most legal standards.
How California Insurance Law Comes into Play
California has more laws to protect insurance policyholders than any other state in the country. They also tend to have some of the most forward thinking policies from environmentalism to bail reform. However, a great deal of this insurer backout is legal, even with California’s “good faith” insurance laws on the books.
As companies release their public statements, they often downplay the full scale of policy changes.
A spokesman for CSAA Insurance Group said in an email, “After careful review of our exposure in Northern California, we are non-renewing only a very small percentage of insurance policies with the highest risk.”
Farmers Insurance said in another email correspondence that, “We have begun an initiative to reduce our wildfire exposure in the state. Customers who experienced a loss in the recent Camp, Woolsey and Hill fires will not be impacted by this initiative.”
They fail to mention the state law prohibiting insurers from dropping customers who suffered a total loss caused by a declared disaster for a set time.
If a customer suffered losses before 2019, their provider must offer to renew the policy at least once. For losses in 2019 and beyond, insurers must offer to renew customers at least twice or for 24 months, whichever is greater.
Beginning this year, the state introduced another new law to protect the homeowners living in or near a disaster area who suffered a loss. The legislation prevents insurers from non-renewing any residential policy in a ZIP code within or adjacent to the fire perimeter. This stays in effect for one year after a disaster is declared.
Looking Forward When the Soot Settles
With so much in flux, non-profits, consumer advocates and government organizations are all looking for solutions to this growing issue for California homeowners and insurance providers.
Consumer Watchdog sent the California Insurance Commissioner an open letter on August 27th, asking the commissioner to put an end to what they describe as “excessive rate hikes” for homeowners who “do everything right” so they don’t “lose their insurance altogether.”
The letter also lists several actionable steps Mr. Lara and the state insurance commission could take. One of them suggests a more transparent model of how insurance companies prove rate hikes are approved.
Mr. Court asks that “black box” risk models based on algorithms be made available to the public and proven in line with Proposition 103, which requires projections to be justified before changing prices.
It also requests Mr. Lara require guaranteed coverage for homeowners who invest in fireproofing their homes, along with offering further discounts for these practices.
Mr. Lara has been criticized in the past for accepting campaign donations from the insurance industry, and as Mr. Court told the New York Times, he hopes the commissioner will adopt a tougher stance toward insurance companies.
“Things will get worse unless the insurance commissioner cracks down,” he said.
Mr. Court also commended the commissioner on steps to boost transparency about non-renewals and pushing the creation of a statewide standard for home-hardening. Home-hardening makes a house less vulnerable to fire damage. The commissioner also forced insurers to renew or write coverage for homeowners or communities that meet that standard of home-hardening.
Homeowners, Mr. Lara, and other experts agree that not building in places where homes are likely to burn in the first place should be part of the equation.
For now, Mr. Court and other officials point to the state-backed California FAIR Plan program, which provides a safety net for homeowners dropped or rejected by private insurers. However, the FAIR plan is usually more expensive and offers less comprehensive coverage.
What’s more, with so many homeowners flocking to FAIR, prices are rising. As of April, The Fair Plan sold 33,898 policies in brush/wildland areas in 2017, a 25% increase from the prior year.
Tammy Schwartz, vice president for underwriting and operations, reported that in some counties at very high risk of wildfires, they’re running 300% ahead for 2018.
On April 1st, The Fair Plan raised its premiums by 20% on average. However, homeowners in the lowest wildfire risk zones will receive a 10-30% rate cut. If you are in the highest risk areas, increases may be as high as 69%.
In the months and years ahead, California insurers and homeowners face a great deal of uncertainty. Lower-income families in high wildfire risk zones are especially at risk, as insurance may be (or already is) too expensive to purchase.
All the while, development continues throughout Northern California.
Have something to add? Comment below. If you’d like to read more about legal news, legal advice, or the history of laws, be sure to check out our archives. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact us here.
Author Bio: Kalev Rudolph is a writer, researcher, and editor for ExpertInsuranceReviews.com. Kalev’s work focuses on auto and home insurance, travel, and lifestyle.
Look, most of us have done it at one point or another.
You’re mowing the lawn and you blow grass onto the road.
But, did you ever consider that blowing grass clippings into the roadway may be a danger to motorcyclists?
When considering the possible dangers, it may bring you to ask the question: is it illegal to blow grass into the road?
The answer may not be what you think it is.
Let’s take a look at the laws (if any), and real dangers of leaving lawn debris in the road…
For starters, I am certainly not completely innocent here. When I was younger, I would often blow grass from the lawn mower directly into the road. Of course, this was before I understood the dangers of doing so. In fact, I thought it was fun.
And, honestly, it is simply not something most people even think about. And it was certainly not something I was ever taught about.
So, to the question at hand….
Is it Illegal to Discharge Grass Clippings into the Roadway?
Not really, at least not specifically due to the dangers to motorcyclists…
There is actually not really a cut and dry answer to the question, “Is it Illegal to blow grass into the road?”.
I know, in the age of the internet, you would think it would be a simple answer, right?
Yet, the answer is just not that easy.
And this just goes to show how uninformed the general public is on the issue.
Worst of all, most people aren’t aware of the dangers that grass clippings and other lawn debris can cause motorcyclists on the roadway.
In Some States, it May be Illegal… Indirectly
Though no states specifically ban the practice of discharging all grass into the roadway, some do prohibit placing anything on the road that may cause a hazard to motorists.
While it does not explicitly state that leaving grass in the roadway is a crime, the following statement could make it a crime to deposit grass in a way that could pose danger to a motorcyclist.
“Nor shall any person throw or deposit or cause to be deposited upon any highway any soil, sand, mud, gravel or other substances so as to create a hazard to the traveling public.”
But, the lack of explicitly stating that depositing grass in the road is illegal, leaves the law up to interpretation.
Discharging Grass Clippings On Roadway is Illegal for Environmental Reasons
Some cities, like the City of Davenport, Iowa, actually do ban blowing lawn clippings into the roadway. However, it is not due to motorcycle safety, it is actually part of their “Clean Water Act“. Other cities may have similar laws.
You see, in many cities and many states it is indeed illegal to place hazardous materials into the roadway. Yet, very few, if any, states have laws which specifically ban launching grass on the motorway (I can’t find them, let me know if you do) .
Now, some websites claim that the practice of discharging grass in the roadway is illegal. Yet, upon further investigation, their statements appear to be based heavily on speculation. And there is not really any law, which I can find in any state, that specifically bans the practice of blowing grass into the roadway.
However, from a legal perspective: If you are blowing grass in the road way, and a motorcyclist loses control, because of the grass you placed there, you may be held liable for your negligent actions. In which case, you may need to find a good lawyer.
Criminal Negligence and Grass Clippings in the Roadway:
Though there appears to be a lack of laws governing lawn debris in the road directly...
There is another way in which motorcyclists are legally covered should any incident involving discharged grass in the roadway occur.
I reached out to Brad Biren of Des Moines Injury Law, and he had a very informative response to the question “Is it Illegal to Discharge Grass Clippings into the Roadway?” specifically in regards to the hazards it may pose to motorcyclists.
This is what he had to say:
“There are three ways one can go about obtaining recovery, with lots of overlap in between. The first method is treating the cause as a typical motor vehicle accident; the second is to claim it under your uninsured motorist coverage, and the third is to claim as a general negligence claim.
Each of these methods of recovery exist in a universe of three scenarios:”
“Motorcyclist is driving and the work vehicle ahead of him has debris littering the road and some of that debris was grass clippings and the motorcyclist couldn’t do anything to avoid the grass-clippings. Solution: file a claim against that driver’s insurance policy and utilize your own Medpay (no-fault medical coverage connected to your auto coverage). “
Scenario 2: Lawn Debris In Roadway Causes Bike Accident from Unknown Source
“Motorcyclist is driving and sees that a work vehicle is letting debris and other grass clipping larder fall over the highway and poof an accident occurs. Except this time, there is no at-fault driver in sight, only extrinsic proof that such a driver existed (e.g. witness statements). In that case, the motorcyclist would file an uninsured motorist claim against their own coverage and similarly access their medpay. At that point, things work pretty similarly to a traditional motor vehicle accident claim.”
Scenario 3: Lawn Care Company Discharges Grass from Mower onto Roadway Leading To Motorcycle Accident
“Motorcyclist is driving and using due care and while driving past a lawn mowing company, the motorcyclist fails to see a large pile of grass clippings erroneously lying in the roadway. In that case, the lawn company would be at fault for negligence in failing to maintain safe working conditions (grass should be bagged and not in the middle of roadways). You can still use your Medpay as you were on your bike, but the claim would be against the business’s umbrella policy vs their auto coverage. Similar standards to prove causation and such as the first two scenarios.”
The three scenarios laid out byAttorney Brad Biren really reset my frame of thought on the subject.
I suppose the issue isn’t really “is it illegal?”.
What really matters is: “is there a remedy at law for the issue?”.
Indeed, there is.
Yet, being able to recover damages when an incident occurs is only part of the battle. The other half is avoiding the incident in the first place. And that may only come from spreading awareness of the issue.
Why Aren’t there More Laws Governing Glass Clippings in The Roadway?
After reading the comments from attorney Brad Biren, it occurred to me that: the solution already exists in the legal system.
As far as the law is concerned. Laws governing grass in the roadway may not exist due to this simple fact…
Laws governing the roadway are vehicle and traffic codes, and on the other hand, the people cutting the lawns are not driving on the roadway. Therefore, two different jurisdictions exist. Creating a strange space where an actual incident must occur for something to be done about it.
Maybe, just maybe, that is a good thing. Perhaps it is a sign that our legal system isn’t too over-protective, or at least it isn’t as bad as it could be.
On the other hand, the real danger of lawn debris in the roadway is something we need to have a long conversation about. Likely, most of the folks placing lawn debris in the roadway aren’t aware of what they are doing.
After all, only 8% of households even own a motorcycle. So it is not too surprising that many folks are not aware of the real dangers involved with spreading grass along the roadside.
Should there be more laws governing blowing grass from lawn mowers onto roads?Some think so.
In Conclusion: What is the Best Way to Go About the Issue of Lawn Debris in the Road?
I would argue that the most effective method for controlling lawn debris in the roadway is: education.
I am certain that: if more people were informed about the issue of blowing grass into the roadway, they would simply opt not to. Whether or not a statute or code exists which directly bans the practice.
And, if you were in a motorcycle accident that was caused by someone else’s negligence act, you have options.
There are many excellent lawyers such as Brad Biren of Des Moines, Iowa ready to come to your aid. Many of those top-rated lawyers are listed right here on HealingLaw.
What is legally safe drinking water? What contaminants are permitted to be in drinking water and how much. Lets look into the EPA’s standards for legally safe drinking water and see what makes water legally safe fro drinking.
The history of traffic laws stretches back to 1901, when cars began to be more popular. Since then, we have continued to expand the regulations of drivers on the road. Here is the history of driving laws from 1901-1960.
As California wildfires sweep on through the state, some insurance companies are starting a fire of their own. What’s happening to CA homeowners in high risk fire zones? To get a full picture of the legal situation in the Golden State, read on here.
Lawns are often bashed for being impractical. But is there perhaps a deeper legal history which gave rise to the lawn? Did property maintenance lead to ownership? The truth may surprise you…
A U.S. District Court Judge, Judge C.J. Williams sentenced Randy Constant to 10 years in prison for his fraudulent actions. During the years between 2010 and 2017, Constant defrauded 10,000’s of consumers across America. These customers thought they were buying foods such as eggs and steak, they thought were raised using organic food manufacturing methods.
Looking for more information on the Equifax Data Breach. Check out this article and find out today if you qualify for $125 or more from the Equifax class action lawsuit.
When a police officer knocks at your door, it can be stressful to say the least. But is it illegal to ignore the knock, or do you have to answer when there is a police officer at the door?
What is the oldest law in the world? Well it depends on how you look at it. There is The First Existing Law, The First Written Law, and the First Spoken Law, lets take a look at all three.
At one point in time, mowing the lawn and maintaining a landscape was a sign of wealth.
Now, the lawn is so ingrained in society that: not maintaining your lawn could lead to a fine, or even losing your home.
It gets even crazier, but some people claim adverse possession of others’ land, simply by maintaining it.
So what is the legal history of the lawn, and why do we have lawns?
Let’s find out…
The History of the Lawn
The theory for the original lawn is believed to stem back to the ancient African Savannah, where the people could see for far distances, with little visual obstruction.
With inspiration from the grasses of the African Savannah, the earliest written existence of the lawn comes from ancient Japan. Where the text called “Aatu-tei-kaiI” or “Sakuteiki” was written. This book covered the first known writing on the practices of sodding.
From this point, the legal history of lawns grew mostly in the dark, and we don’t see lawns on record again until the 12th century.
It wasn’t until the 12th century that we started to see the emergence of the lawn as we know it today. These lawns were maintained by scythe and grazing animals. It is believed that the lawn began as a sign of wealth, as most land surrounding homes was reserved for growing crops and food.
But, there are some legal theories that suggest that lawns were actually a method of owning a landscape through maintenance.
Here’s the deal, to understand the lawn, we have to take a look at the theory of “property rights”.
What are Property Rights?
As you may already know, property rights refer to:
” …any type of right to specific property whether it is personal or real property, tangible or intangible.”
-Blacks Law Dictionary 5th Edition. Page 1096
In the US, this includes the individuals right to private property. Whether that purpose is to hold, rent, or sell that property.
For the most part, property rights are pretty straight forward, and most of us have a general understanding of them.
However, by looking at the legal history lawns have played in society, we can begin to develop a deeper grasp of what it truly means to “own” property.
Locke, a philosopher and an original proponent of the scientific method of the 17th century, had a legal theory of his own. His theory reasoned that labor rights (or maintenance) of property could lead to property ownership.
Locke argued in support of individual property rights as natural rights. Following the argument the fruits of one’s labor are one’s own because one worked for it. Furthermore, the laborer must also hold a natural property right in the resource itself because exclusive ownership was immediately necessary for production.
How Far Back Does the Labor Theory of Property Go?
It is unlikely that Locke was the first to come up with the labor theory of property.
In fact, it would seem that if you look at the history of property of land ownership, it is a logical assumption that the original land became owned by those that worked the land.
“You own what you can maintain…”
-Unknown Origin
Though the history of property ownership through labor rights is largely undocumented, logically the idea is nothing new. Similar laws are still on the books to this day.
Adverse Possession Through Lawn Care
Though we don’t have a written historical record for land ownership through property maintenance, we do have laws today that stem from an unseen past.
It’s true, property ownership through mowing the lawn. It’s actually a thing!
At least in some states.
Similar to “squatter’s rights”, a person who maintains a lawn through mowing it for an allotted amount of time, can come to own the land!
According to the article by Home Steady, paying property tax may assist you in claiming adverse possession of the land you are maintaining.
Losing Property For Failure to Mow the Lawn
This is crazy, but it goes even deeper.
Cities across America levy fines against homeowners that fail to mow or maintain their lawns.
Some cities, like those in Dunedin, Florida. Have gone as far as to foreclose and auction off properties when their owners refuse to maintain their lawns.
That’s right. Failure to keep your lawn maintained, and refusing to pay the fines, may result in your home being auctioned off. It seems that the laws about cutting grass are becoming more and more common.
But is this legal recourse just history reminding us of where lawns came from?
Legal History of the Lawn– What is the Bottom Line?
The legal history of lawn and property ownership has a surprisingly little documented history. We see through the legal theories of Locke, and even modern statutory laws, that the history of lawn care may have been much more important than we have yet recognized.
In an age where people need insurance for their landscaping to protect it from storms, it is needless to say the the history of the lawn, and the laws surrounding it, have come a long way!
I anticipate that one day we will uncover that maintaining lawns and property was indeed one of the original methods of land ‘ownership”. Though I have looked into the topic before, it seems that our written history does not recount this theory.
Get this, one was even sentenced to a decade in prison for fraudulently selling organic produce. This is the largest organic food fraud scheme in US history.
So what is the deal? Lets take a look…
Organic Food Fraud Scheme
A U.S. District Court Judge, Judge C.J. Williams sentenced Randy Constant to 10 years in prison for his fraudulent actions.
During the years between 2010 and 2017, Constant defrauded tens of thousands of consumers across America. These customers were buying foods, such as eggs and steak, that they thought were raised using organic food manufacturing methods.
Instead, this livestock was raised by feed that was falsely labeled as organic by Constant and his conspirators. Unsuspecting farmers were simply buying conventional livestock feed labeled as organic, and at an increased price.
“Thousands upon thousands of consumers paid for products they did not get and paid for products they did not want,”
“This has caused incalculable damage to the confidence the American public has in organic products.”
US District Court Judge Williams
Constant, a 60 year old farmer, used his Iowa based grain brokerage to sell products he claimed were organic, at a rate which undercut other companies selling organic products.
On August 16, 2019, Constant was sentenced to 122 months in prison, along with three co-conspirators. Micheal Potter was ordered to serve 24 months, James Brennan was sentenced to 20 months, and James’s father, Tom Brennan, was sentenced to three months behind bars. Judge Williams said that Tom Brennan’s light sentence was due to his service in Vietnam.
What Organic Foods Were Fraudulently Sold?
The two year investigation, which is still ongoing, uncovered thatshocking amounts of corn and soybeans were sold; all of which were falsely labeled as organic.
On the bright side, most of these produce were actually sold as cattle and livestock feed. But the numbers are shocking!
What percentage of soybeans and corn were falsely labeled as organic?
During the year 2016 it is suspected that:
7% of Organic Corn
8% of Organic Soybeans
Were fraudulently sold by Constant and his conspirators.
How Much did the Organic Food Fraud Cost Consumers?
Assistant Attorney Jacob Schunk estimates between $250 million and $1 billion dollars were spent on these fraudulent grains. To defraud consumers and the USDA, Constant mixed small amounts of organic grain in with his grain which was conventionally grown, and not actually organic.
Whats the Bottom Line?
With Roundup exposure lawsuits numbering in the thousands, people are perhaps more vigilant than ever when it comes to awareness of pesticide exposure. This case isn’t even over. A 5th co-conspirator has pleaded guilty and is still awaiting sentencing.
With this organic food fraud case undermining the public’s trust in food manufactures, will we see an increase in public demand to increase food safety, and oversight?
