Premises
Liability
Overview
Premises Liability is a form
of negligence in which the owner or lessor of property has a
duty to exercise ordinary care in the management of the
premises to avoid exposing persons to an unreasonable risk
of harm. As in
Negligence Law, one must prove negligence,
causation, and damages.
A person who owns, leases,
occupies or controls property must use reasonable care to
discover any unsafe conditions and to repair, replace, or
give adequate warning of anything that could be reasonably
expected to harm others. In deciding whether a defendant
used reasonable care, the jury is instructed to consider,
among other factors, the following:
The location of the property;
The likelihood of harm;
The
probable seriousness of such harm;
The likelihood that someone would come onto the property
in the same manner as the plaintiff did;
Whether the defendant knew, or should have known, of the
condition that created the risk of harm; and
The extent of the defendant's control over the condition
that created the risk of harm. CACI 1001.
(CACI are the
approved jury instructions from the Judicial Council of
California. Jury instructions are read to the jury by
the judge and establish the law the jury must follow in
deciding the case. A partner of Cheong, Denove, Rowell &
Bennett has been formally recognized as one of the
attorneys who assisted the task force in the preparation
of these jury instructions.)
Often, the most significant
question in premises liability cases against store owners is
whether the defendant created the dangerous condition and,
if not, whether he or she had actual or constructive notice.
The jury is instructed to decide "whether, under all the
circumstances, the condition was of such a nature and
existed long enough so it would have been discovered and
corrected by an owner using reasonable care. If an
inspection was not made within a reasonable time before the
accident, this may show that the condition existed long
enough so that a store owner using reasonable care would
have discovered it." CACI 1011
A defendant can be liable to
a plaintiff even though the defendant does not own or lease
the property if that person controls the property as if it
were his or her own. In that case, the defendant is
responsible for maintaining, in a reasonably safe condition,
all areas he or she controls. CACI 1002

Click to Enlarge

Click to Enlarge
|
|
A defendant owner,
lessee, occupier, or one who controls the property,
is responsible for any injury caused by a hidden
defect if the defect caused an unreasonable risk of
harm, the defendant knew or should have known about
it, and the defendant failed to take reasonable
precautions to protect against the risk of harm. The
jury will be instructed that the defendant must make
reasonable inspections of the property to discover
such conditions. CACI 1003
A landlord, before
giving possession of a leased property to a tenant
or upon renewal of a lease, must conduct a
reasonable inspection of the property for unsafe
conditions and correct any such condition
discovered. This inspection must include common
areas under the landlord's control. Even after a
tenant has taken possession, a landlord must use
reasonable care to correct an unsafe condition under
the landlord's control if the landlord knows or
reasonably should have known about it. CACI 1006
A business owner and
a landlord may also be held liable for the criminal
conduct of another person on his premises. An owner
of a business that is open to the public and a
landlord must use reasonable care to protect persons
from another person's harmful conduct on his or her
property if the owner or landlord can reasonably
anticipate such conduct. CACI 1005 |
Types of Premises
Liability Cases:
Attorneys at Cheong, Denove,
Rowell & Bennett have successfully represented clients
who have been injured in each of these type of premises
liability cases:
Wet or slippery floors
Tripping hazards
Inadequate or absent handrails
Inadequate lighting
Cracked or elevated sidewalks
Dangerous work sites
Inadequate security
Improper height of a riser or improper width of a stair
Malfunctioning elevator or escalator (to learn more
about this, go to
Actions Against Common Carriers
Typical Defenses:
Defendant did not create the dangerous condition.
Defendant did not know of the dangerous condition.
The condition was so open and obvious the plaintiff
should have avoided it.
The condition did not create an unreasonable risk of
injury.
The dangerous condition did not exist for a sufficient
period of time for the defendant to have known
about it.
Proving the Premises
Liability Case
Some people may look at the
law and conclude that winning a premises liability case is
easy. It is not. On the one hand, the plaintiff is trying to
prove that the dangerous condition was open and obvious and
that the defendant should have recognized and corrected the
condition. On the other hand, the defendant is arguing that
if the condition was open and obvious, the plaintiff is at
fault for not recognizing and avoiding the danger.
As with other negligence
actions, the jury must be persuaded to rule in the
plaintiff's favor. Sometimes it is necessary to hire expert
witnesses to help prove negligence. Depending on the nature
of the claim, these witnesses might have expertise in
building codes, safety, merchandising, human factors,
engineering or biomechanics.
Conclusion
It take experience to win a
premises liability case. The attorneys at Cheong, Denove, &
Bennett have written articles and have lectured on the
subject of trial practice and premises liability cases.
Cheong,
Denove, Rowell & Bennett
has the extensive resources to handle the most complex legal
matters, yet is small enough to offer individualized service to
our clients.
At Cheong,
Denove, Rowell & Bennett we believe the more you know,
the better choice you will make.
Contact Us
<back to top>
The
information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it
intended to be, legal advice. This web site is designed for
general information only. The information presented at this
site should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor
the formation of a lawyer/client relationship.