Articles Posted in Premises Liability

Last time, we mentioned that the type of damages available in a premises liability case depends on the specific circumstances of the case. Damages, we noted, comes in several varieties, including those dealing with economic losses and non-economic losses, as well punitive damages.

Compensatory damages, sometimes called actual damages, relate to losses that are easily translated into monetary compensation. Such damages include things like lost wages, diminished earning capacity, medical expenses, and similar sorts of damages. Non-economic damages cover losses that are not easily monetized, such as pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life. Punitive damages are a category all their own. 

While compensatory damages have the aim of repaying the accident victim for his or her injuries and losses, punitive damages are aimed at punishing the defendant in a civil context. Punitive damages are not available in ordinary cases, but only in cases involving particularly egregious conduct. Ordinary negligence does not make an accident victim entitled to punitive damages, but only conduct involving a high degree of moral culpability. Such damages are not ordinarily going to be awarded in premises liability cases, though it is possible.

In recent posts, we’ve been looking at the topic of premises liability and strategies property owners sometimes use to minimize their liability. From what we’ve said thus far, it should be fairly clear why it is important to work with experienced legal counsel in seeking compensation from a negligent property owner.

First of all, property owners cannot be expected to take responsibility for their negligence when an accident occurs on their property. This is especially true in cases where the injured party may have failed to take reasonable care in some way or can be said to have assumed the risk by participating in a sporting or recreational activity. Having an advocate is necessary to ensure a negligent property owner is not successful in refusing to take responsibility. 

Second, premises liability goes beyond slip and fall cases and encompasses situations involving violent crime and theft, food poisoning, and construction accidents. It is important to have guidance and advocacy in cases like these where premises liability may be a less obvious cause of action.

This is our fourth post in a series dealing with the topic of premises liability. We’ve already looked briefly at premises liability claims in general, as well as the issues of comparative negligence and assumption of risk in the context of premises liability.

So called “slip and fall” cases are among the most common types of premises liability claims. Case law in New York has established several viable defenses for property owners faced with potential premises liability in slip and fall cases. First of all, a plaintiff must be able to prove the existence of a dangerous or defective condition on the property which led to his or her injury. A plaintiff who cannot who cannot provide sufficient evidence to establish such a condition may not hold the property owner liable. 

Not only must there have been a defective condition on the property, but the defect must a certain character to it. Two important defenses deal with the nature of the defect. First of all, the defect must not have been trivial. What exactly constitutes trivial is a matter for a jury to decide, and there are factors that are supposed to be taken into account. The basic idea, though, is that not every technically defective condition is sufficient to give rise to a claim of negligence.

In our last post, we began looking at the principles of assumption of risk and comparative fault in premises liability cases. In the state of New York, premises liability is based on negligence, which is the failure to carry out a legal duty owed to another.

While some states make premises liability dependent on the classes of persons who are on the premises—whether they are invitees, trespassers, licensees—New York law focuses more on reasonableness of conduct under the circumstances of the case. Speaking generally, though, a landowner or business owner will be liable when he or she created a dangerous or defective condition which causes an accident or when he or she had notice of the condition and failed to take action to address it in a reasonable amount of time. 

Notice of a dangerous condition may be either actual or constructive, the difference being that constructive notice may be found when a specific defect in the property is visible and apparent and exists for a long enough time that the property owner should have discovered it and taken steps to address it.

Last time, we began looking at a premises liability case out in California involving an injury that occurred in a New York health club. One of the issues in that case, we noted, was whether the health club patron assumed the risk of injury by participating in an activity offered by the club. Another issue was comparative negligence, and whether or not the patron acted negligently in obtaining the injury.

When it comes to premises liability law, New York is a pure comparative fault state. In tort law, pure comparative negligence refers to a scheme whereby a court can acknowledge a finding of negligence on the part of the plaintiff and reduce any damages awarded in proportion to the plaintiff’s negligence in contributing to his or her own injuries. 

This means that one of the defenses available to property owners and businesses in premises liability litigation is that the injured party acted negligently. New York law also recognizes assumption and risk as well, which is a slightly different principle. Assumption of risk is the principle that a property owner or business does not have a duty to protect a patron if the patron freely assumes a known risk. Assumption of risk is usually only applied in cases involving athletic or recreational activities.