In order to understand "premises liability" correctly, one must understand the definition of "premises." In these types of personal injury cases, there is a property involved. That property, place, building etc. must have presented a danger of some kind to those allowed to be on the premises. If that danger was a result of poor care or negligence on behalf of the premises owner, then any injury resulting from that danger could be deemed the liability of the premises owner. Consider this example scenario.
A mother takes her children to a public swimming pool. The pool has broken tiles or pavement that cause one of the children to slip, fall and injure themselves. If the owner of the pool knew of the defect but took no corrective actions to remediate the problem before allowing the public to use the pool, then the pool owner would likely be considered responsible for the accident.
Premises liability law will differ slightly from state to state, but basically, it involves a negligent property owner contributing either directly or indirectly to the injury or injuries of individuals visiting the premises. If a similar scenario recently occurred and either you or a loved one sustained an injury, then please consider contacting a Santa Clarita premises liability attorney from our firm as soon as possible.
In order for a premises liability claim to be valid, there are three basic factors that must be in place. Most basic is establishing the ownership of the property. When you come to our firm with your case, we will evaluate who was actually in ownership or who maintained responsibility for the premises in question. Once this has been established, then we can move on to establish whether or not the injured party was an "invitee." This factor can become incredibly sticky, so to speak.
In order to diminish liability, a premises owner might attempt to claim that the injured party was never allowed on the premises in the first place and thereby a trespasser. The California Supreme Court made an extremely influential decision in 1968 when they ruled that even a trespasser may have a valid injury claim after being injured on a property that they were not allowed to be on. Since the law may seem convoluted in this area, please consult a personal injury attorney from our firm on the matter.
Finally, negligence or a wrongful act must be proven. Simply because an individual was injured on a premises does not mean that there was some sort of carelessness exhibited by the premises owner. Our firm can evaluate your case free of charge on your first consultation and tell you whether or not you have a valid claim. Here is an example of non-negligence: being injured on a property because of a failure to heed clearly posted warning signs. On the other hand, if you were injured on a property because of a defect that should have been fixed, failed security, lack of warning signs or a similar act of negligence, then you likely have a claim and should contact our firm as soon as possible.
Negligent security claims as well as slip & fall claims are two of the most common types of premises liability. The first involves failed security or oversight that contributed to or failed to prevent a preventable accident. The latter claim involves a trip, slip or fall on a property because of some sort of dangerous situation. To learn more about premises liability, to schedule a consultation with our firm or to simply voice your concerns to a legal professional, then please do not hesitate to contact a Santa Clarita personal injury lawyer at our firm today.