If you are a property owner, you are legally obligated to ensure your spaces are reasonably safe for visitors. Failing to fulfill this responsibility may result in premises liability. When someone is injured on another's property due to hazardous conditions, they may file a premises liability claim seeking compensation. The property owner must employ various defenses to mitigate or eliminate liability.
- Lack of Knowledge About the Hazard A common premises liability defense is that the property owner did not have constructive or actual awareness of the hazardous condition. To be held accountable, the injured person must demonstrate that the property owner knew or should have known about the hazard and chose not to fix it.For instance, if a spill occurs in a supermarket aisle and a customer slips shortly thereafter, the owner might argue they did not have sufficient time to discover and rectify the issue. Regular inspections and maintenance logs can support this defense by demonstrating due diligence in property upkeep.
- Comparative Negligence Comparative negligence permits the plaintiff and defendant to share fault in several jurisdictions. Property owners may assert that the accident was entirely or partly caused by the injured party's negligence.Suppose a guest stumbled over a clear obstruction while texting. The owner can claim that the visitor's lack of focus significantly contributed to the occurrence. The plaintiff's compensation may be reduced or, in certain situations, withheld entirely, depending on the extent of their fault.
- Open and Obvious Doctrine Property owners may invoke the "open and obvious" doctrine, asserting that the hazardous condition was so apparent that any reasonable person would have noticed and avoided it. For example, a clearly visible pothole in a parking lot might be deemed open and obvious. The owner might not be liable if the danger is evident, as visitors are expected to take reasonable precautions to protect themselves.
- Lack of Duty Owed A property owner's duty of care changes according to whether a visitor is an invitee, licensee, or trespasser. Invitees, like customers, are owed the highest duty of care, while trespassers are the least. Owners may defend themselves by arguing that the injured party was trespassing or exceeded the scope of their invitation, thereby limiting the duty owed.
- Assumption of Risk This defense implies that the plaintiff consciously and willingly accepted the risks associated with a specific behavior or circumstance. For instance, attending a baseball game entails accepting the chance of getting struck by a foul ball. Property owners may claim that the injured party knew about the risks and decided to go forward, releasing them from responsibility.