As record droughts stretch across much of the United States, trees in many areas of Connecticut may be affected. This could lead to dangerous property conditions. With winter just around the corner, along with the typical hazards that winter brings like snow and ice, the combination of weakened trees and winter conditions could be a recipe for disaster.
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.
This blog has previously discussed a few topics with regard to Connecticut premises liability law. In February we took a look at a very basic thumbnail sketch of the common-law format of negligence cases, and in January we touched on the basic statuses that a person who is on someone else's property may have. It turns out that these two concepts are related in terms of cases involving premises liability.
A month or so ago on this blog we discussed the various types of status a person may have when he or she has been injured on the property of another. This status can affect the duty a premises owner has to the individual with regard to risks on the property. This week, we'll take a brief look at one aspect of premises liability in cases involving invitees to a property. You may recall that an "invitee" is a person who is present on a property for the benefit of the owner or for their mutual benefit. This covers nearly all commercial transactions that occur in brick-and-mortar businesses. The aspect we will look at is called the "mode of operation rule."
Readers of this blog may remember that in the past we have discussed the basic tenets of negligence law as provided by the common law. This week, we will look into the concept of to whom a property owner owes a duty.