Premises Liability And Negligence
Premises liability is the umbrella legal term which details the responsibility of a “property owner” (general term—the law includes others who do not expressly own or control a property but who still may be liable) to maintain the property while exercising a standard of care that does not expose visitors to that property from harm.
Slip and fall signs are a frequent sight in orange county
The Justia.com website hosts a pdf document detailing the essential aspects of premises liability from a lawyer’s or plaintiff’s perspective.
Boiled down to those essential elements, a person who has suffered an injury or other harm that he/she believes was the result of negligence on the part of the property owner (or other persons or entities in charge of the property in question) has to prove four elements of the case.
First, they (or their attorney) must name as a defendant that person or entity who owned or otherwise has control of the property where the injury occurred.
Second, the plaintiff must prove that the “owner” of the property was negligent and did not take action to ameliorate a potential risk on the property.
Third, the plaintiff must prove that he/she was harmed as a result and that the injury occurred on the property in question.
Fourth, the plaintiff must prove that the negligence of the “owner” was a substantial factor in the harm suffered by the plaintiff.
How Negligence Has Been Augmented Legally Over Time
In general, California law (California Civil Code, section 1714) states that each person is obligated to be responsible not only for their own overt acts but also for omission or lack of exercising proper care (i.e., “duty of care”). A lack of duty of care in the area of premises liability can be construed as negligence.
Premises liability has expanded over the course of time to include not only the actual owner of a property but to others who also must abide by a standard of care.
The case law in this area harkens back to the 1968 case of Rowland v. Christian which served to codify general principles of negligence.
Other cases that have contributed to the understanding of premises liability include Sprecher v. Adamson Companies (1981) in which the court stated in is the “duty to take affirmative action for the protection of individuals coming upon the land…” That duty, it said was “grounded in the possession of the premises.”
Further defining the premises liability laws, Alcaraz v. Vece (1997) held that a defendant need not be the owner of the property per se, but could still be held liable.
Of course, when faced with an injury sustained at a property owned by another, it’s not sufficient to merely make the claim of injury. The courts demand the plaintiff substantiate the claim by addressing the essential four steps (see above). Like many areas of the law, this can be a complex task. Fortunately by hiring a practiced personal injury attorney who understands this area of law, it relieves the injured person of jumping through legal hoops alone. For seasoned lawyers like Kyle Scott, this is what fighting for clients essentially means.
The law can sometimes seem mazelike, but a call to Kyle Scott Law at 714-544-1460 or 866-757-0959 can straighten the way to justice. Call today. The consultation is always free.