Business owners in California have a responsibility to take steps to keep people safe while they are on business property. When a person suffers an injury due to a slip and fall on someone else's property, he or she might be entitled to monetary compensation based on a theory of premises liability. Injured parties might have claims for medical bills, pain and suffering, lost wages or other damages. In many premises liability cases, there are a number of people who might have liability.
Slip-and-fall accidents that occur outside are among the most common kinds of premises liability lawsuits in California and throughout the country. They can happen in parking lots, on pathways or wherever else a dangerous condition may lurk. In many cases, a property owner or the party that possesses the property will be held responsible for an accident causing injury. However, there are some instances in which a property owner may not be held liable for an accident.
California partygoers may wonder about the safety of the nightclubs and party sites they visit, especially when elevated floors and balconies are involved. At one clubhouse near Clemson University in South Carolina, the floor collapsed in the early morning hours of Oct. 21 while a party was in progress. Dozens fell down into the basement as the floor gave way, and 30 people were hospitalized after the incident.
Slippery floors and spoiled produce can pose problems for grocery store owners and operators in California. To combat the problem of slip-and-fall accidents, grocery stores may put down mats or other materials that are easier to walk on. They will also mop floors on a regular basis or wax them to keep people from slipping or otherwise getting hurt. In some cases, employees will walk the store and take note of potential hazards.
In the aftermath of the shooting at the Madden tournament that left two people dead and many others injured, large venue spaces in California are taking another look at their existing security protocols. This is especially true since one of the victims who was injured in the shooting has decided to file a lawsuit against the venue and EA.
Homeowners in California who wonder where the blame would lie if a worker was injured on their property should consider the following guidelines. Premises liability law first of all distinguishes between licensees and invitees and outlines the duties that property owners have to each one.
Swimming pools provide recreation during hot California summers, and the law views them as attractive nuisances. Under this legal doctrine, homeowners might be held liable for accidents involving children in their pools even in cases when people did not give children permission to use pools. Federal records about drownings indicate that over 3,500 people drown in accidents not involving boats annually. In addition to drownings, pool accidents could include slips and falls that cause broken bones and cuts. People with swimming pools have an interest in taking precautions that could prevent pool accidents for children and adults.
When people in California go out to shop at a mall, visit the laundromat or watch a movie, they rarely expect to encounter severe hazards along the way. However, when business owners do not maintain their properties, dangers could lurk for unsuspecting consumers. In fact, many people have been seriously injured in slip-and-fall accidents caused by hazardous conditions in places that people might expect to be safe and well-kept. Business owners with premises open to the public have a responsibility to keep their properties safe for visitors and guests.
California residents who enjoy going to amusement parks may wonder from time to time if the rides they go on are entirely safe. Unfortunately, a recent incident in Daytona Beach, Florida, does not provide reassurance. On the night of June 14, a Daytona Beach Boardwalk roller coaster derailed, sending two riders plunging 34 feet to the ground and leaving two other riders dangling upside down.
Landlords in California have certain responsibilities when it comes to how properties are kept up. But are landlords also responsible for activities of tenants that may be illegal or unsafe? This was the question at the center of a case involving an eighteen-year-old individual who died from a drug overdose while at a property owned by another individual. A complaint filed by the decedent's parents alleges that the property owner should have taken steps to keep the house in "reasonably safe" condition.