[theptip]

For example, “attractive nuisance”: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance_doctrine

I don’t know about liability for injury to adults trespassing but it wouldn’t surprise me if it’s a thing in some jurisdictions.

I’d be fine with explicitly limiting liability in exchange for passing “right to roam” laws, the US is way to litigious.

[Zak]

This is an area of the law I find problematic. It seems to me there should be a way to tolerate access without assuming any liability.

[pas]

adhesion contracts? basically a sign that says "by entering you accept all liability"

[Zak]

I don't think that would work because attractive nuisance is meant to be about risks to children, who are generally presumed to be unable to waive liability. Originally, it was only applied to very young children, but has been expanded. In one case, 17 year old boys were allowed to use it: https://www.law.com/almID/900005548604/

Very young unsupervised children probably aren't an issue for a property in a remote area, but 17 year olds on ATVs could easily access such a property and could certainly find ways to injure themselves with the combination of ATVs and terrain.

I think statutory limits on liability for attractive nuisance would probably be the best answer. It should not be usable over a certain age - ten seems about right to me. That's old enough to know things like drowning is possible, unfamiliar machinery is dangerous, and large animals can hurt you.