Montpellier, Susan Fishman, Dave Graham discussed on The Dave Gram Show on WDEV


And the Steven and Susan Fishman the defendants in the lawsuit here are Noah fisherman's parents so you know they obviously close family relations there and and I would gathered at some point. Maybe the land was subdivided or whatever and the younger Fishman couple established a home daycare on the on the subdivided land the older the older generation says to the younger generation. If your daycare charges in staff WANNA come over and and use our Orlando to gain access to the Brooke here you're welcome to do that no charge no exchange of funds or anything and that's that's sort of was the background that I mean that's what laid down the circumstances for this unfortunate event right now and you know. I mean I think the dissent really latches onto that relationship as well as the fact that there were improvements was a sandbox teepee. This was not just wild open land. This was somewhat you know developed for this type of purpose of these kids coming down and frankly this is very very common by my I children went to daycare in Montpellier and had a very similar circuit circumstance where the daycare owns a small portion of land a little Kurt lidge around the the the house where the daycare is but then they go walking off into the woods you know and and one thing about this decision is that should encourage bridge landowners to allow that because it does protect those landowners even when you know the there's a sandbox or there's a trail or there's a bridge or there's a teepee. you know those aren't enough. The court is saying to create to to change the liability relationship. Well you know ah I wanNA reflect for a moment on these sort of alternative scenario. Here of this. Three decision gone the other way. What impact would that have on the on recreation Asian in Vermont Vermont. Has this ethos of of you know people storage saying you want to hunt on my property. That's fine. You want to cross my property. Get to the stream fishing. That's fine you. WanNa put a hiking trail across my property. The long trails still I believe crosses some areas where it's technically private property but agreements between the Green Mountain Club which manages the long trail and the private property owners to say that's that's a welcome activity also what would the impact on these various activities. If this case had gone the other way I don't I don't think it was affected the long trail largely because I think those are both and and operated non profit and you know the owners are really that classic kind of recreational use but what it would have given pause Haas too. I think are a lot of landowners that have businesses nearby them. You know the setup in this particular case is not unique as I was mentioning before there are a lot of daycares that are located on small parcels abutting larger woods and those landowners let those daycares there's come in. They may let them build a sandbox on the property. They may let them build trails and bridges and other things and if I was representing one of those large landowners in this case gone the the other way I would have had them revisit that substantially you know whether would've been cutting them off completely I don't know but it would have yeah. I think it would have given all of these landowners creek deal of pause. you know you look at national life in Montpellier that you know there's a daycare that abuts it my children actually really want to and you know they let they let the daycare use it but if gone the other way and I was counsel for National Life I would have said we need to revisit that we need to make sure we're in compliance because you know what the issue here what the hook was was that the parents who owned the land had allowed improvements or made improvements to the land that that facilitated this daycare so even though they were otherwise open and holding Minnesota as open recreational use of land the relationship between the two was such that would've if the decision had gone the other way would have been the trigger and I would've it would've caused every single landowner. I think that had this type of situation to have to revisit the nature of their relationship so in in some ways you know this. This is a good decision. If you're hunter. You're a landowner that has in this type of relationship this decision the way it came out does protect that obviously if your this particular family and you're seeking some you know semblance of of Justice through this decision. It's IT SAT. It's tragic very sad. Indeed of young young boy drowning is always a tragedy a I'm Jay. You've got me curious now. This is a bit of a tangent maybe but I'm just curious in terms of the way lawyers operate in and and so Supreme Court decision comes down like this that say it did go the other way and you know you have a couple of clients who owned properties adjacent to daycare centers and and the clients allow how the daycare centers access to their properties much in the same way as this one did do you proactively call those clients and say hey you you should know there's a important court decision came down to it could affect you. Yes I do that sometimes. Sometimes I don't even chance the clients already called and said. Have you heard about this case. As what what does it mean for me. You know and certainly I see this a lot with municipal clients. Where there's a decision comes out that changes the field in a way they need to operate and we called the municipal client to tell them hey? You need to be aware of this decision if you're doing it this way that needs to change so it's it's sort sort of a heads up kind of a situation it is it is to you know not fall into the same trap that the the losing side did or you know in some ways to to enlighten them that hey you can do things this way. you know that sort of. I know some lawyers with their clients to long term clients do what what they call an annual tuneup which is let me give you an update as to the status of these particular cases that are likely to affect you uh-huh and what you need to do differently differently. If you haven't already yeah that's GonNa be a pretty involved process. You think about something like like school district whether it is constantly court decisions all the time involving schools and so you'd want the superintendent. Maybe the school board to get an annual. You know a regular report from the attorney for the district who comes in and says here's what here's what the latest is from the Bronx record here's or or the US Supreme Court here's how it could affect our district that Cetera it makes no sense keeps us busy keeps you guys well employed so that's a that's a good thing hey we are fast approaching the top of the hour here which means the end of this Tuesday morning Dave Graham Show wd Ev FM and am. I'm and I want to thank my guest. Dan Richardson very much for coming in thanks Dan I might pleasure. Thanks for having me and folks. don't forget about our podcast go to. WD Ev radio DOT COM followed the link to the day. Graham show scroll down a bit. You'll find a list of as a later date include the name Dan Richardson and the fact that we talked about legal affairs in the second part the program so check that out one of the Warren store the friendly Funky almost world-famous Warren store for sponsoring our podcast as for now stay tuned for the bill. Serta a common sense radio show the midday news service and we'll see all tomorrow morning have a great day everybody..

Coming up next