Cases That Hold Property Owner Responsible For A Guest’s Injury

Suppose that there was a dangerous condition on a piece of property. Suppose, too, that someone delivering a package to the same address got injured, due to the presence of that dangerous condition. Could that delivery person sue the owner of the property?

The answer is “yes,” that delivery person would have the right to sue the property owner. Of course, that does not mean that the law guarantees the plaintiff the right to any demanded compensation. The plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit needs to prove the existence of certain elements.

Can the plaintiff identify the person that owned the piece of property with the dangerous condition?

Plaintiffs cannot assume that a certain person owns a property. In order to win a personal injury case, proof of such ownership needs to be presented to the court, as Injury Lawyer in Kitchener. Plaintiffs do have the right to sue someone that controls the area with a dangerous condition. Still, the court needs proof of the possible defendant’s controlling hand.

Plaintiffs in a personal injury case against a property owner must show that the defendant had used the owned property in a negligent manner.

The government has established certain standards of care, which members of the public are supposed to follow. For example, any staircase should have a handrail for the stairs’ users to grasp, during their ascent or descent of those particular steps. If a mall had some stairways on the land surrounding the walled-in stores, and if those same stairways did not have handrails, then that would qualify as failing to follow an established standard. If someone got hurt, by falling on one of that mall’s stairways, then that victim would have a right to sue the mall’s owner.

The level of negligence shown by the defendant must have harmed the plaintiff.

Moreover, the defendant’s negligence could not have served as a minor contribution to the plaintiff’s injury. Instead, it had to be a substantial factor in creation of that same problem. What could qualify as proof that the defendant’s negligence had risen to the level of substantial, with respect to causing the plaintiff’s injury?

Had something about the defendant’s actions made the eventual harm to the plaintiff foreseeable? That is the question that the court would be asking, if someone had brought a personal injury claim against a property/premise’s owner.

If someone that owned a certain premise chose to construct a trap for trespassers, then any reasonable person could foresee the result, if a trespasser were to step onto that same trap. Hence, the trap’s existence would qualify as proof that the negligent defendant had gone to the trouble to create something that could cause substantial harm to an innocent person.