In premises liability cases where comparative or contributory negligence applies, property owners often use specific defenses to limit or avoid liability for an accident.
These defenses focus on proving that the injured party was partially or entirely responsible for their own injuries.
One of the most common defenses is comparative negligence, which applies in states where fault is shared between both parties. Property owners may argue that the injured person contributed to their own accident by acting carelessly, for example, by ignoring warning signs, failing to pay attention to their surroundings, or engaging in reckless behavior. If successful, this defense reduces the compensation the injured party can receive based on their percentage of fault. In some states, if the injured party is found to be more than 50% responsible, they may not recover any damages at all.
In states that follow contributory negligence, property owners have an even stronger defense. If they can prove that the injured person was even 1% at fault, the claim may be completely barred, meaning the injured party will not receive any compensation. This strict standard gives property owners a powerful tool to deny liability by showing that the plaintiff played any role in the accident.
Another commonly used defense is the open and obvious doctrine, which argues that the hazardous condition was clearly visible and should have been avoided by any reasonable person. If the danger was clearly visible and should have been avoided by any reasonable person. If the danger was easily noticeable; such as a large hole, a wet floor with warning signs,or an uneven sidewalk, the property owner may claim that the injured person failed to take proper precautions, making them responsible for their own injury.
Property owners may also use the assumption of risk defense, arguing that the injured party voluntarily entered a situation with known dangers. This defense is often used in cases involving activities like amusement parks, construction zones, or sports facilities, where the risks are clearly communicated through signs or waivers. If the injured person knowingly accepted these risks, the property owner may not be held liable.
Additionally, property owners may claim that the injured person was trespassing or did not have permission to be on the property. In many states, property owners owe a lower duty of care to trespassers compared to lawful visitors. If the injured person was not legally on the premises, the owner may not be responsible for ensuring their safety.
These defenses allow property owners to reduce or eliminate liability by shifting responsibility to the injured party. To counter these arguments, it is crucial for claimants to provide strong evidence, such as surveillance footage, maintenance records, and witness testimony, to prove that the property owner’s negligence was the primary cause of the accident.
