Sentences with phrase «safe under these premises»

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

Not exact matches

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.

Under Georgia premises liability law, property owners have a duty to keep their buildings and land safe for guests and visitors.

Under premises liability laws, store owners have a duty to make sure their store is relatively safe for all customers.

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.

Under premises liability law, building owners are accountable for providing safe conditions for people visiting for business or social reasons.

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

Negligent security laws fall under general premises liability, which is that a business has a duty to protect people they invite onto the property and keep them safe.

Slip and fall injuries fall generally under the area of premises liability in that the owner of the premises is legally responsible to keep the premises safe for others to use.

Property owners, under premises liability law, are required to keep their property safe for visitors, which means maintaining the property and taking care of any hazards that may present themselves.

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.

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.

Under premises liability law, property owners have a legal responsibility to maintain a safe environment for visitors that is free of foreseeable hazards.

• Skull fractures • Concussion • Open Head Wounds • Traumatic Brain Injury • Spinal Cord Trauma • Broken Nose • Eye Injuries • Facial Fractures • Facial disfigurement • Lacerations • Neck Injuries • Whiplash • Shoulder Dislocations or Fractures • Upper Back Injuries Under Florida premises liability laws, business and property owners have a duty to keep their buildings safe and secure for all visitors.

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.»

These are both situations where a property owner or manager may be liable for a resulting injury, as they have a responsibility to provide safe access to their space under premises liability law.

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.

Under premises liability laws in Virginia, property owners have a duty to keep their properties safe by warning of dangerous conditions that might cause someone to slip, trip or fall and suffer injury.

Under premises liability law, all property owners are legally required to maintain safe conditions for guests who are visiting their property.

Guests of hotels are considered «invitees» under premises liability laws, and therefore hotel management and staff have a serious legal responsibility to provide a safe experience with certain protections against coming into harm during their stay.

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.»

If he had been required instead to stay on the premises, under supervision, for half an hour after Carli's mother retrieved her, they would have made a safe getaway.

«You can't gain experience when you're living under the premise of «better safe than sorry,»» says Martinelli, who's featured in the new DVD «Beyond the Secret.»