You are liable if a car crashes into a boulder on your property?

And even if the road was there, zoning is a later practice.

I meant, feedback that the bridge was poorly designed/the house should have been taken by eminent domain and removed, with a guardrail put in, or something like that.

If you people were in charge medieval moats would have been outlawed.

The attractive nuisance doctrine addresses a landowner’s duty to trespassing children. It doesn’t say anything about putting up pointy spikes to deter (presumably) adult cyclists.

That’s pretty much it.

In other words, putting a boulder in a place where the landowner knows it will cause harm because people frequently trespass on that area of the property is legally actionable. Putting up a fence to keep people out is just fine.

There are numerous homes in PA that were built right up against the road side of the property line back when the ‘road’ was literally a horse & buggy path. Now that the town wants to widen the road &/or realign an intersection they can’t because one or more of the properties are historic; therefore, they can’t just be bought out thru eminent domain & razed.
In looking at the current street view, I find it amusing that the bridge across the street has a dedicated & set-off pedestrian sidewalk that goes…nowhere :smack: It ends in the backside of a guardrail. We’re not just talking an ADA non-compliance issue, as I bet a significant portion of the otherwise able-bodied population is not able to navigate over a guardrail.

I assume the county administration reasoned “after a few years of high beams shining into their living room all night long they’ll be happy to sell to us for cheap”.

The bridge crosses a municipal boundary, so it might be an issue of only one side caring about pedestrian access, with the guardrail side taking the position that they’re not going to do anything to enable access because it’s someone else’s problem if it can’t be used.