The holiday shopping season is in full swing, and nobody wants to sit out the season because of an injury. Unfortunately, it's not just Black Friday shopping that can result in an unhappy surprise. People are injured at malls and retail shops all year 'round, but the busier the day, the more likely retailers are to skip important safety obligations.
There are very few times when you can see injuries coming. While the world is a dangerous place, many responsible people maintain safe areas around their business or home so that others are not harmed. However, there are times when this responsibility is shirked. When those in charge fail to keep a premises safe, it can lead to unfortunate injuries to innocent bystanders. Such dangerous incidents often fall under the category of premises liability.
This blog has discussed various aspects of premises liability law in Connecticut and whether a property owner is liable for injuries someone suffers while on that property. We have touched on the fact that this partially depends upon the status of the injured party; that is, whether he or she is an invitee, a licensee, or a trespasser. This discussion has generally focused on properties where visitors are transient, such as places of business and the like. However, many people in the state actually reside in properties that they do not own. What happens when someone is injured on the premises of a rental property?
This space has previously taken up the issue of what the three basic statuses are of people who are present on property owned by someone else. To refresh, these statuses include: licensee, invitee and trespasser. The reason the status of a visitor is important is that it affects the duty owed by the property owner to that individual. This may have quite an effect on a civil suit if a visitor in injured on the property. We recently discussed the duties a property owner may owe to a trespasser, but what about the other two categories?
Previous posts here have briefly discussed the various types of status a person may have when present on property owned by another person in Connecticut. Our readers may remember that a person may fall into one of three general categories relevant to this discussion: invitee, licensee and trespasser. We have also touched on the very basic duties a property owner owes to people who fall into each classification. In this post, we'll look a little more closely at what duty an owner may have to someone on the property without permission; i.e. a "trespasser."
In our past few posts dealing with premises liability, we have gone through the various elements of a negligence case, which is generally the theory under which Connecticut plaintiffs attempt to recover in these kinds of lawsuits. You may remember we have briefly discussed the elements of duty, breach, cause-in-fact and proximate cause. That leaves one last element required to recover under a negligence theory: damages.
This blog has been discussing the various elements of a negligence claim in Connecticut as they apply to premises liability cases over the past couple months. To review, to recover in negligence cases, a plaintiff generally must show that the defendant had a duty to the plaintiff, that the duty was breached, that there was an injury and that the breach was both the cause-in-fact and proximate cause of the injury. In this installment we will touch on the next, and probably most complex element of such cases: proximate cause.
Several weeks ago we began taking a look at the elements of negligence that might be involved in a premises liability lawsuit in Connecticut. Readers may remember that we briefly covered the concepts of duty and breach, and how they were related to the various statuses a visitor on property may have, such as invitee or trespasser. This week we will look at an element that is independent of the status of the visitor: "cause-in-fact."
Slip-and-fall and trip-and-fall accidents in stores are all too common. And while these cases often appear straightforward, they rarely are. The store and its insurance carrier will likely fight to deny or undervalue the injury claim.