One would think when someone is trespassing, breaks the law and hurts themselves, or damages their vehicle, that all rights would be waived where the perpetrator has no right to sue the homeowner, or landowner, for damages. However, that is not the case.
Last week Opposition House Leader and Interlake-Gimli MLA Derek Johnson introduced new legislation to protect property owners from unjustified lawsuits by criminals who are injured while trespassing.
Bill 222, The Occupiers' Liability Amendment Act, would protect property owners from being held legally responsible if someone illegally enters their property intending to commit a crime and is injured or killed.
"This legislation is kind of a key part of our broader commitment to ensuring that law abiding citizens feel safe in their own home businesses and their properties and reinforces property rights for the landowners while ensuring that the justice system does not reward criminal behavior," shares Johnson.
Johnson relates a true story where a perpetrator broke into a house and was attacked by a dog in the house when the homeowners were not home. The homeowner ended up being liable for injuries sustained through the dog attack.
Johnson adds Bill 222 does not allow landowners to place a booby trap to intentionally harm somebody who is doing something criminally.
The Bill recognizes that rural properties and farms can pose specific risks and dangers and ensures property owners are not unfairly targeted by lawsuits from trespassers who break the law.
A second scenario took place in a rural setting where trespassers were night lighting (hunting illegally at night with the use of spotlights or headlights) in a field during the night and ran into farm equipment, causing severe damage to their vehicle. The homeowner and their family had been parking their farm equipment at that location for generations.
However, the perpetrator sustained significant damage to his tires and the undercarriage to his vehicle and sued the landowner. The courts awarded the lawsuit to the perpetrator on the grounds that the landowner placed the equipment as a sort of 'booby-trap' to stop people from trespassing on his land.
Johnson says the trespasser did not go through MPIC for repair to his vehicle but sued the landowner directly through small claims court.
"The perpetrator painted a picture that the equipment was unsafely stored and was maliciously placed in that specific spot because it was near a gate," he explains. "They used the term "booby trap" and convinced the court that the farmer set a booby trap, which wasn't the case."
Johnson adds Bill 222 does not allow landowners to place a booby trap to intentionally harm somebody who is doing something criminally. "So, this does not open the landowner up to doing that. You cannot set a trap of any sort to intentionally harm an intruder," he says.
“This bill strikes a fair balance for property owners by protecting them from lawsuits filed by criminals who trespass,”
"Now, that doesn't preclude people for invited guests. So, if you invite somebody and they slip and fall on the ice, it doesn't change the legislation that's there currently."
"So, the law maintains those protections for invited guests, ensuring that the property owner still has a duty of care towards those who are lawfully on the premises."
“This bill strikes a fair balance for property owners by protecting them from lawsuits filed by criminals who trespass,” said Johnson. “At the same time, it ensures accountability in cases of clear wrongdoing and excessive force.”
However, property owners could still be held liable if their actions are found to be intentional, excessively forceful, and result in a criminal conviction.
Bill 222 would also update The Limitations Act to pause the deadline for filing a lawsuit until after any related criminal charges have been resolved.
Please listen to more with Derek Johnson below!