Just outside some of the buildings in Manhattan there are plaques embedded in the sidewalk indicating the property line of said building. I can understand that. If I was paying $6000 per square micron of real estate, I’d be a bit territorial too.
But I was in the K-Mart in Astor Place yesterday and saw another one. I forget the exact wording, but this one noted that people are permitted to cross this boundary at their own risk.
Now living in NYC, I’m all about appreciating risk. Subway pushers, pick pockets, uppity blonde publicists driving SUVs while drunk on gimlets and power, etc…
What is the exact nature of the risk this plaque speaks of? Does it mean once I leave the premises K-Mart’s crack security forces are absolved from protecting me? Does it mean that there’s a very real chance that a crazed Marth Stewart will leap out of housewares, brutalize me with a zester and turn my skull into a fondue pot? Does it indicate that the property line is some kind of event horizon of bad fashion beyond which nothing, not even Edoardo Fendi, can escape?
I think, Alph, you wrote “publicist” where you really meant to put “rich blonde trust-fund bubblehead with access to Daddy’s Rolodex who goes to parties for a living.” Gotta watch those typos.
Now, as to the query…{rubbing side of nose thoughtfully}…I’m not well up on this “K-Mart” of yours, as my Personal Shoppers usually limit their trips on my wardrobe’s behalf to Paris, Milan, and Berlin, but I’m assuming they did not erect one of their suburban strip-mall cinderblock monstrosities right there in Astor Place, hein?
No, they moved into a pre-existing retail space, possibly put up over a hundred years ago to house Abe Saperstein and Sons’ Carriage and Buggy Works.
As you know, parts of New York City buildings regularly fall off, injuring and slaughtering innocent passers-by.
I would assume the the K-Mart legal department did some research on the history of personal-damage lawsuits in the greater New York area before allowing the name to be plastered on a century-old structure, and feel that these plaques may absolve the parent corporation of some blame the next time a tourist gets whiffed by a falling gargoyle.
Hmm, that was my first thought too, DDG. But I think the mere presence of a property line would suggest that undesirables are bootable by property owners. I never see signs in doormanned apartments saying “unannounced visitors are permitted to enter at their own risk” or that “People who aren’t cutomers of Ray Bari Pizza are permitted to use the restrooms at their own risk.”
To me warning people of a risk, indicates that an establishment wants to be absolved of a responsiblity should an event beyond their control occurs. As in “urinate on the third rail at your own risk.” Use of the word risk also seems appropriate wen they are followed by the phrase “Trespassers will be shot on sight”.
I dunno, maybe it is just an unusually drastic wording of “drifters will be bounced”, but it sounds unusual nonetheless.
And Uke, Lizzie’s silver spoon has nothing to do with her inevitable slap on the wrist. Her ability to float through the complex South Hampton legal system is due to the tremendous street cred that hangin’ with the Wu-Tang Clan offers her.
I don’t know about this particular case, but it is my understanding that these plaques are used to avoid the creation of a constructive easement.
Let’s say that you own some beach property. Let’s say that over the years the public has been using part of your property as a path to the beach. One day you decide that you’ve had enough, and block the path. You could possibly be taken to court and be forced to continue to allow the public access to that path. The argument would be that you in effect created an easement by never preventing the people from using your property, and now the public has come to rely on this path. Of course we are taking about a course of open and notorious conduct over many years, not someone sneaking around on your property.
So these property owners are looking to protect themselves in case they wish to alter their buildings in some way that encroaches on the places where the public walks.
As a resident of Thuh Great and Sovereign Tortious State of Alabammuh[sup]TM[/sup], let me offer my two cents on the possible reason for this plaque: K-Mart doesn’t wanna get sued if somebody slips and falls in the store or on the sidewalk.
Here in Thuh Great and Sovereign Tortious State of Alabammuh[sup]TM[/sup], such an unfortunate incident could well cost K-Mart millions of dollars in a civil suit.
Dunno if actually telling people that they’re walking on private property at their own risk will absolve K-Mart of the need to clean the ice off their portion of the sidewalk, though. That’d be the type of question that a lawyer from Thuh Great and Sovereign Tortious State of Alabammuh[sup]TM[/sup] would have to answer.
I have to agree with Sauron on this one. I handle litigation and risk management for a large property managment company, and we use lots of “at your own risk” disclaimer signs - simply because anyone who bumps an elbow sues us. I look at it as a continuation of the “Warning - coffee is hot” labels.
PS - I wonder, if I wear a t-shirt that says “Annoy at your own risk”, am I off the hook if I smack somebody? Hmmm…
I don’t know if this was ever done when old buildings were constructed, or if they do this with old buildings being majorly rehabbed, but with the majority of skyscrapers that have been built in the last 20 years or so, there is an easement granted to the city for sidewalks/open areas.
It’s pretty routine for the building builders to want to go against the zoning, or get some sort of property tax break. The zoning board will say “You want to put on 5 stories more than allowed? Sure, go ahead, that is, if you dedicate 1000 square feet to by a public area, with a few benches, a babbling fountain, a couple of nice shrubberies, etc.”
[quote}Does it mean that there’s a very real chance that a crazed Marth Stewart will leap out of housewares, brutalize me with a zester and turn my skull into a fondue pot?[quote]