Who Is at Fault When Someone Is Injured on Your Property

As outlined below, in California, one of three parties could be at fault if someone is injured on your property. In the first instance (owner liability), a homeowners insurance company is financially responsible for damages. The company also has a duty to represent you in court.

Some property owners mistakenly believe that the insurance company has their best interests in mind. True, insurance company lawyers technically represent property owners. But for all intents and purposes, they represent the company. So, in many cases, insurance company lawyers are quick to settle cases and pass the cost onto policyholders, in the form of higher rates.

To help ensure that doesn’t happen, if someone is injured on your property, a consultation with a Los Angeles premises liability law attorney is a good idea. A lawyer who works for you thoroughly evaluates the case and, based on that evaluation, determines a ballpark settlement figure.

Furthermore, many homeowners insurance policies have hidden loopholes. For example, in many cases, if owner negligence prompted a claim, the insurance company will not pay that claim or defend the owner in court. So, many owners need legal representation, not just legal advice. A good Los Angeles premises liability law attorney handles both tasks.

Owner Liability

You are at fault if someone is injured on your property if you were negligent. A negligence case begins with a duty of care. Many states use a complex victim classification system to set the standard of care.

But in California, this determination is a bit more straightforward. Instead of one or two factors, courts look at a number of factors, including:

• Type of Property:

  Commercial property owners usually have a high legal responsibility, especially if the business relies heavily on foot traffic. Private property owners often have a lower duty of care, especially if a fence restricts access.

• Likelihood of Serious Injury:

  Some private homes have permanent injury hazards, such as swimming pools and large dogs. These owners have a special duty of care to prevent injuries. The court also considers the cost of guarding against the harm and the owner’s control over the property. Landlords often don’t directly control a tenant’s dwelling.

• Knowledge of Hazard:

  This factor may be the big one. A Los Angeles premises liability attorney can use direct or circumstantial evidence to establish knowledge. Direct evidence of actual knowledge, like a safety citation concerning a swimming pool violation, is the most powerful evidence.

The other three elements of a premises liability negligence case in California are breach, causation, and damages.

Owners breach their duty of care when they fail to meet the standard of care and tolerate injury hazards. Causation is a connection between the breach and the damages. Damages in a premises liability matter usually include medical expenses, lost wages, and emotional distress. 465

Victim Liability

California, like most other jurisdictions, is a comparative fault state. Therefore, in some cases, premises liability victims could be legally responsible for their own injuries.

A trip and fall over an open and obvious hazard, such as an uneven sidewalk, is one example. Everyone, injury victims and property owners alike, has a duty of care at all times. Victims cannot ignore avoidable hazards then blame property owners for their injuries.

However, this comparative fault defense is complex. An uneven walkway may be open and obvious to most people, but not to older people who don’t see well, especially if the light is poor, and/or shuffle their feet when they walk.

Similarly, dog owners are not legally responsible for injuries if the victim provokes the animal. In California, provocation is an intentional and (usually) a physical act.

People cannot accidentally provoke dogs by making loud noises or quick movements. Furthermore, in most cases, mere teasing doesn’t count. The victim must inflict so much physical pain on the animal that it must react violently to defend itself.

The assumption of the risk defense often applies in dog bite cases as well. If the owner displayed a “Beware of Dog” sign, the victim is liable for injuries if the victim:

• Saw the sign,
• Could read the sign, and
• Understood what the sign meant.

Assumption of the risk is also a defense in falls (“Caution Wet Floor”) and swimming pool injuries (“No Lifeguard On Duty”).

Third-Party Liability

We mentioned property owner control above. Frequently, a landlord is legally responsible for on-premises injuries. Assume an apartment complex forbids rottweilers. The apartment manager doesn’t aggressively enforce the rule. If a rottweiler bites someone, the apartment complex may be liable for damages.

The same principle (respondeat superior, or let the master answer) could apply if a daycare teacher allows children to play near a strange dog.

Premises liability claims are very complex. For a free consultation with an experienced premises liability law attorney in California contact the Law Offices of Eslamboly Hakim. Virtual, home, and hospital visits are available.