Premises Liability
Premises liability concerns the legal responsibility of owners and occupiers of property for injuries sustained thereon. An occupier or possessor of land is treated in the same manner as a landowner in many situations. The actual liability of these individuals will vary depending on the rules and principles adopted in the controlling jurisdiction. In some states, the court will focus on the status of the injured visitor in determining the liability of the owner or occupier. In other states, the focus will be on the condition of the property and the activities of both the owner and visitor. In many states, the condition of the property, the activities of both the owner and visitor and the legal status of the injured visitor will all have a bearing in the determination of liability.
In states that focus only on the status of the visitor to the property, there are generally three different labels that may apply: invitee, licensee, or trespasser. An invitee is generally someone who is invited onto the property of another. This invitation is generally held to carry with it the representation that reasonable care has been exercised to assure the suitability of the premises. A licensee generally enters the property for his own purpose and, as such, is present at the consent of the owner. Finally, a trespasser generally enters without any right whatsoever to do so. In the case of licensees and trespassers, there may not be an implied representation that reasonable care has been exercised in favor of the visitor.
In states where consideration is given to the condition of the property and the activities of the owner and visitor, a uniform standard of care is generally applied to both invitees and licensees. This uniform standard requires the exercise of reasonable care for the safety of the visitor, other than a trespasser. In order to satisfy the reasonableness standard owed to invitees and/or licensees, an owner has a continuing duty to inspect the property in order to identify dangerous conditions and either repair them or post warnings as appropriate. An owner may be found liable if he or she has knowledge of a dangerous condition.
Determining whether the standard of reasonableness required by an owner toward licensees (and in some states, both licensees and invitees) has been met requires an examination of numerous factors including, among others, the circumstances under which the visitor entered the property, the use to which the property is put, the foreseeability of the harm, the reasonableness of repair or warning, and the ease of accomplishing same.
With respect to trespassers, if the owner knows that it is likely trespassers will enter the property, he or she may be charged with a duty to give reasonable warning to prevent injury. This requirement applies only with respect to artificial conditions which the owner has either created or maintains and knows may be likely to cause serious injury or death and where the owner believes that potential trespassers will not discover the condition. Therefore, even in cases where there is a dangerous artificial condition, a landowner does not necessarily need to give warning to potential trespassers if the condition is obvious.
A landowner's duty to warn is different with respect to children. In those cases, occasionally referred to as "attractive nuisance" cases, the defendant must give a warning if he or she knows, or should know, that children are likely to trespass and that the condition was likely to cause serious bodily injury or death. The children, because of their tender age, must fail to discover the condition or fail to realize the extremity of the risk. Finally, the defendant's need to maintain the condition, and the burden of eliminating it, must be low when compared with the risk to children if the condition is kept, and the defendant must have failed to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise protect children.
One of the commonly used limitations on an owner's liability is the invocation of the injured party's comparative or contributory fault. A visitor has a duty, in most cases, to exercise reasonable care for his or her own safety. When reasonable care is not exercised, the plaintiff's recovery may be limited or reduced by his or her own negligence.
Perhaps the highest hurdle that a visitor must overcome in holding a property owner liable for an injury is that of knowledge. The visitor must prove that the owner had knowledge of the condition, or should have had knowledge of the condition, in order for liability to attach. This is quite often difficult to prove.
Special rules of liability may apply in cases of lessors of property. The general rule holds that a lessor is not liable to a lessee, or anyone else, for physical harm caused by a condition on the property. This general rule has numerous important exceptions. For example, a lessor is responsible for injuries that occur as a result of a latent defect, which existed at the time the lessee took possession of the property if the lessor knew or had reason to know of the defect. A latent defect is a concealed, unreasonably dangerous condition, either artificial or natural. Similarly, if the lessor agrees to undertake a repair for the benefit of the lessee, it must be done in a non-negligent manner. Similar exceptions may apply in other circumstances, such as where the lessor opens the property for admission of the public or where the lessor maintains control of the premises.
Form: Getting Sued for an Injury at Your Place of Business
To read and printout a copy of the Form please link below.
Getting Sued for an Injury at Your Place of Business
You can download a free copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader here.
Copyright © 1994-2006 FindLaw, a Thomson business
DISCLAIMER: This site and any information contained herein are intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Seek competent legal counsel for advice on any legal matter.