Sentences with phrase «reasonably safe premises»

The suit seems to rely in part on the legal theory of premises liability, in which the owner or manager of real property has a duty to maintain reasonably safe premises for guests, and to warn guests of known hazards.

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.

Inadequate lighting, poor condition of the floor tiles or ripped carpeting qualify as dangerous conditions which tends to prove a property owner failed to maintain reasonably safe premises.

Not exact matches

The law demands that you make your premises reasonably safe for customers and potential customers, but the list of protected people doesn't stop there.

Accordingly, plaintiff alleges, the course breached its duty to (a) «secure the premises of the golf course and to warn its business invitees, including the Plaintiff, of the alligator's aggressive presence, size, or aggressive behavior;» and (b) «make the golf course premises reasonably safe for the Plaintiff and to warn the Plaintiff of the presence of the large, dangerous, and aggressive alligator.»

In Florida, owners of parking lots have two duties of care to their invitees: (1) to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition and (2) to give warning of concealed perils.

If an individual has been invited or allowed onto the owner's land, that individual will be designated an invitee or licensee under some states» laws, and the owner will be held to a duty of care to keep the premises reasonably safe for such individuals.

Most of the time, it's the responsibility of a property owner to maintain premises that are reasonably safe.

In the result, although because of the landlord's status as an occupier and as a landlady on whom an obligation rests to ensure the premises were reasonably safe for persons using them, the judge found the landlady at fault.

The owners or operators of gyms, fitness centers, or health clubs have a responsibility under premises liability law to keep their premises safe from reasonably foreseeable types of hazards.

Section 3 of the OLA provides that all occupiers must take care to ensure that persons and property remain reasonably safe while on their premises.

Property owners in Tennessee and neighboring states have an obligation to keep their premises in a reasonably safe condition so that people who enter the property lawfully are not exposed to unreasonable risks.

Hotels have a responsibility to make their premises reasonably safe for their guests.

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.

The legal significance is that a possessor of land has the duty to an invitee to inspect the premises for hidden defects and to repair or erect safeguards, if necessary, to make the premises reasonably safe.

Premises liability refers to a landowner's obligation to keep his property reasonably safe for people that come on to his property.

The owner of the gas station property, or the owner or operator of the business if the building and / or land are leased, have a duty to keep the gas station premises reasonably safe.

Translating those obligations into the circumstances of this case, Sharp LJ confirms that the question which ought to have been asked was: «Whether, as a matter of objective fact visitors to the school were reasonably safe in using the premises, including for this purpose, the water fountain, bearing in mind of course that children do not behave like adults, and are inclined to lark around.»

Property owners have a duty to maintain a reasonably safe environment for their visitors, so the Seattle premises liability attorneys at Ward Smith, PLLC can help you fight to ensure that they are held accountable.

Slip and fall claims are also called «premises liability» cases because they are based on a legal duty to ensure that a premises is reasonably safe.

All business owners are required to maintain their premises in reasonably safe condition and warn of hidden dangers.

This is based on premises liability which holds that owners and occupiers of property have a duty to keep their property reasonably safe for visitors.

Under British Columbia's Occupiers Liability Act, owners and occupiers have a duty to ensure that the premises is reasonably safe for others.

Business owners owe a duty to people who are lawfully on their premises to keep the premises reasonably safe and free from dangerous conditions.

Landowners or occupiers have a duty to guard against foreseeable injuries and to maintain a premises in reasonably safe conditions.

A recent California case involving a woman who was injured when she tripped over an unattended ladder in Target demonstrates both the business's knowledge requirement as well as its duty to remove hazards, keeping the premises reasonably safe.

The OLA imposes on any «occupier of premises» a duty to ensure that an invited person «will be reasonably safe in using the premises.»

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].

Property owners have a duty to maintain their premises for visitors to make sure it is reasonably safe.

You have the right to expect the property to be reasonably safe under these premises liability laws.

The landowner, property manager, landlord, tenant, occupant, etc. breached their legal duty to the injured party (typically by failing to keep the premises reasonably safe and / or to warn of any known dangerous conditions on the property, or failing to investigate the potential for dangerous conditions in a commercial setting)

They must also keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition.

Under the Occupiers» Liability Act in Ontario, ski resorts are allowed to restrict, modify or exclude their duty to ensure that people entering their premises are reasonably safe.

The landowner, property manager, landlord, tenant, occupant, etc. owed a legal duty to the injured party (typically, a duty to keep the premises reasonably safe and / or to warn of any known dangerous conditions on the property, as well as a duty to investigate the potential for dangerous conditions in a commercial setting)

Yes, a person can sue for damages caused to their then - unborn child by lead paint in an apartment where it can be established that the landlord was negligent in maintaining the premises is a reasonably safe condition.

In general, the restaurant owner or operator has an obligation to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition.

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.

In such cases, property owners and landlords may be liable in a suit against them or a claim for damages, as they have a legal responsibility under premises liability law to provide a reasonably safe environment for their tenants.

Premises liability is the legal term for the responsibility of owners of real estate to keep their properties reasonably safe.

Premises liability refers to the responsibility of the owner or manager of a property to make sure it is reasonably safe for the people who use it.

Property owners have a duty maintain premises in a reasonably safe condition.

The law of premises liability holds residential and business owners responsible for making sure that their property is reasonably safe.

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.»

In this case the courts said that the duty for the occupier is to make the premises reasonably safe.

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

We would have an engineer attend at the premises to determine whether or not the railing indeed violated the building code or was not a reasonably safe...» Read this article

Premises liability law, which requires an owner or manager of land to maintain the premises in reasonably safe condition and warn visitors of known hazards, imposes few obligations in regard to tresPremises liability law, which requires an owner or manager of land to maintain the premises in reasonably safe condition and warn visitors of known hazards, imposes few obligations in regard to trespremises in reasonably safe condition and warn visitors of known hazards, imposes few obligations in regard to trespassers.

It has to be proved beyond a doubt that someone was negligent or should have reasonably known that the premises were in an unsafe condition, and that they still did not take proper steps and precautions to make it a safe space.

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.»

Although a business invitor is not a guarantor of the safety of those who might be expected on the property, a duty remains to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition for prospective business invitees.