D
Deleted member 3577
Guest
Guest
Offline
There is an old fence law in Pennsylvania but, I thought it was more for farmers.
And yes....Sometimes you are legally obligated to pay.
Pretty wicked bill if it's 20 acres long /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif
https://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:R_P...lient=firefox-a
In Barber v. Mensch, 157 Pa. 390, 27
A. 708 (1893), a case which interpreted an earlier version of this requirement, the Court
held to be "sufficient" a division fence must prevent livestock from entering the adjoining
owner's land and triggering the owner's common law liability for damage caused by his
trespassing livestock. Finding that there is no other discernible purpose for the Fence Law
but to protect property from trespassing livestock, the Court concluded that the obligation
to share in the cost of erecting and maintaining the fence would not apply to an adjoining
property owner who does not keep livestock on his property. This conclusion, the Court
noted, avoids the unreasonable result of requiring every owner of improved and occupied
property to pay a portion of the cost of a division fence which he or she neither wants nor
needs. As supported by decisions in other states, this result would be unreasonable.
And yes....Sometimes you are legally obligated to pay.
Pretty wicked bill if it's 20 acres long /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif
https://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:R_P...lient=firefox-a
In Barber v. Mensch, 157 Pa. 390, 27
A. 708 (1893), a case which interpreted an earlier version of this requirement, the Court
held to be "sufficient" a division fence must prevent livestock from entering the adjoining
owner's land and triggering the owner's common law liability for damage caused by his
trespassing livestock. Finding that there is no other discernible purpose for the Fence Law
but to protect property from trespassing livestock, the Court concluded that the obligation
to share in the cost of erecting and maintaining the fence would not apply to an adjoining
property owner who does not keep livestock on his property. This conclusion, the Court
noted, avoids the unreasonable result of requiring every owner of improved and occupied
property to pay a portion of the cost of a division fence which he or she neither wants nor
needs. As supported by decisions in other states, this result would be unreasonable.