Sentences with phrase «reasonable safe premises»

Not exact matches

If you control the premises, you're required to use reasonable care to provide a safe environment for your guests.

If you were on the premises for the purposes of conducting business or as a social guest, the property owner has a duty to keep the property reasonable safe and will be liable if you suffer serious bodily injury.

While property owners have duties to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe manner, visitors to the property also have a duty to take reasonable precautions to stay safe.

They must make reasonable efforts to warn of hidden dangers, to keep the premises safe, and to regularly inspect the premises.

The underlying principle of premises liability cases is that whoever owns or controls a piece of property or building has duty to maintain the property in a reasonable safe condition.

The court found the business had a duty to exercise reasonable care in providing reasonably safe premises when it knew or should have known of a risk on the premises.

Proving negligence on the part of the business owner in a slip - and - fall case requires demonstrating facts that show a lack of reasonable care in maintaining safe premises.

They basically state that whoever owns land or structure must use reasonable care to make sure that the premise is safe for others.

The law of premises liability varies somewhat from state to state, though most states» laws impose a duty upon the owner of premises to exercise reasonable care to protect children who have been invited on or are known to be present on the owner's premises safe from harm, including the harm of sexual assault.

This court abolished, in premises liability actions involving a slip and fall on snow and ice, the distinction between natural and unnatural accumulations of snow and ice, which had constituted an exception to the general rule of premises liability that a property owner owes a duty to all lawful visitors to use reasonable care to maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances [370 - 384]; further, this court saw no reason to limit its holding to prospective application [384 - 386].

Using the evidence discovered in your case, it must be proven that the defendant / property owner failed to maintain his / her premises in a reasonable and safe condition.

It's a principle of premises liability law that the owners of establishments such as hotels, motels, bars, taverns, and nightclubs should take reasonable steps to keep their patrons and employees safe from the kind of crime that often can be associated with these types of businesses.

The duty of a business owner to exercise reasonable care to keep business premises safe from dangerous conditions that may injure customers is an example of such a duty of care.

If a child's trespassing is reasonably foreseeable to a homeowner because, for instance, the homeowner's premises contain an attractive nuisance (something particularly attractive and enticing to children, such as a swimming pool or playground equipment), a duty to exercise reasonable care to keep the premises safe for such a child trespasser arises on the part of the homeowner.

Thus, there was enough evidence here for the Court to conclude that there was no genuine issue for trial, meaning the TTC took reasonable steps to ensure its premises were safe in these circumstances.

Property owners are legally obligated to make reasonable attempts to keep their premises safe for patrons.

Thus, the owner of the house or entity should make sure that the staircase in their premise is safe and the design is reasonable.

An «occupier» is defined in the legislation as including «(a) a person who is in physical possession of premises; or (b) a person who has responsibility for and control over the condition of premises or the activities there carried on, or control over persons allowed to the premises...» An occupier's duty of care under the legislation is as follows: «An occupier of premises owes a duty to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that persons entering on the premises, and the property brought on the premises by those persons are reasonably safe while on the premises.»

There just needs to be evidence that the occupier took reasonable steps to make the premises reasonably safe.

the plaintiff must point to some act or failure to act on the part of the defendant which resulted in the injury, this act or failure to act being a breach of the defendant's positive duties to take reasonable care to ensure the plaintiff was reasonably safe while using the premises.»

By Michael Lesage In Ontario, the occupier of property is under a statutory duty to: «take reasonable care in the circumstances to make their premises safe.

Property owners have to take reasonable steps to ensure that their premises are safe both inside and outside.

Finally, a trespasser enters the property without any invitation to do so and without any guarantee that reasonable care has been taken to assure that the premises are safe.

The appellant sued the respondents alleging negligence, breach of duty of care, and breach of their duty under s. 3 (1) of the Occupiers» Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O. 2, to «take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that persons entering on the premises, and the property brought on the premises by those persons are reasonably safe while on the premises.»