It of significant importance to make known that Franze did, indeed, have a most clear access to the path, which pertains to corridoring fence's step, which is determined to be within close proximity of the road. Bearing no lock, hatch, bolt, crossbar, ground-planted pole, chain (linked or otherwise), it's of naturally typical assumption that this passageway is not intended solely for private use. A public avenue is that which is accessible by citizens of the public; if it was not intended to be used by all, it should have the equipment to deter, elsewise why would it be private?

This revelation illuminates the consideration of guilt, as it places blame upon Farmer Joe's shoulders. He made the concious decision, and took fulfilled physical action, on making the aforementioned space in the fence. Farmer Joe foresaw that his peers would make use of the newly blazed trail (elsewise, why make the parting in the first place?), but apparently did not take any consideration of potential health hazards. These range from a loose cobblestone that may cause one to fall over, promptly injuring themselves as they collide with the terrain nearby, as well as injury incurred due to rotting fence wood and rusted metal fencing.

The case of individuals having to ensure that erected pathways are safe for the intended users, is covered in the legal document titled "Occupiers Liability Act 1995", which states that if a step, or path, is constructed for the use of a recreational person, then there is a legal burdeon on the occupier to maintain it to a reasonable condition.