Friday, September 27, 2019

Negligent Security & Premises Liability Research Paper

Negligent Security & Premises Liability - Research Paper Example The researcher states that unlike many laws that are enforced uniformly across the United States, premises liability law can differ from state to state. As an example, consider the scenario of an individual visiting an apartment and injuring themselves there. In some states, the owners of the apartment building would be liable for the injury; however, in other states, the tenant of the apartment where the injury occurred would be liable for the injury. Therefore, as described in the example, the law of premises liability can be enforced differently depending on the laws of the state involved. As indicated by the classic elements of premises liability, the plaintiff had to be an invitee or licensee in order to hold a landowner liable for a tort that occurs while the plaintiff is on the premises. A 1968 California Supreme Court decision, however, removed the legal distinction between an invitee, licensee, and trespasser when deciding if the possessor of the land could be held liable fo r harm that occurs on the premises and held that a landowner owed a reasonable duty of care to anyone on their premises. This decision held that a possessor of land could be held liable for harm that occurs on their property, even if the harm is to a trespasser or an individual that was not invited and should not be on the premises. Attractive Nuisance Doctrine The 1971 case Haddad v. First National Stores, Inc. established the standard for the duty of care owed to trespassing children. Previously the duty  of a landowner owed to trespassers was not to harm them in a willful or wanton manner; however, the Haddad decision changed this standard and added a special duty of care with regard to children. The court adopted the attractive nuisance doctrine which makes a landowner liable if the plaintiff can prove: 1) the owner knows, or has reason to know, that children are likely to trespass where the condition exists; 2) the condition is one which the landowner knows and realizes, or h as reason to know and realize, involves an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death to such children; 3) the child does not realize the risk or danger involved; 4) the utility to the landowner of maintaining the condition is slight compared to the risk to children; and, 5) the landowner fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise protect the children. Even though the case established the attractive nuisance doctrine, it is difficult for both a plaintiff and defendant to be involved in any case based on this doctrine. Another development in the premises liability law relates to the element of the law regarding the necessity of negligence or some other wrongful act. â€Å"Third party premises liability† cases refer to cases where the possessor or owner of a property can be held liable for injury or harm that occurs on the premises but is the result of a wrongful act of a third person and not the possessor of the property. The issues of duty and ca usation are complex in these cases since the injury is not caused by the possessor of the premises directly, but still may be the liability of the owner or possessor of the premises.

No comments:

Post a Comment