A silent contract creates the basis for a charge of premises liability. A retailer has the contract with any customer. The retailer has promised that the customer will remain safe, after entering the store’s door.
What features could show a retailer’s failure to follow-through with that silent contract?
The absence of some type of safety gear, where it should be present. For example, the absence of a banister on a staircase can be a cause of liability, as per a personal injury lawyer in Oakville.
Creation of a dangerous condition: the presence of a wet floor could qualify as a dangerous condition, if the customer did not get warned about the floor’s condition.
Negligent maintenance: Repair jobs that were done in a haphazard fashion. An attempt at safety that did not go far enough. For instance, an effort to roll-up some carpet, which could cause customers to trip. If the roll was not hidden and was not removed from an obvious pathway, the roll’s existence could qualify as an example of negligent maintenance.
Negligent inspections: This possible feature gets checked as a way to keep a property owner from claiming that he or she had paid an inspector. Legally, that claim must be backed with evidence, such as a book that showed the schedule for past and future inspections. Alternatively, the property owner would need to come forwards with receipts for payment of bills, with each bill coming from the inspector that has been blamed for the safety issue.
Failure to repair hazardous or dangerous conditions. These danger spots could be photographed, with the photos serving as evidence. Each photograph should be dated, so that the property owner could not claim that the pictured problem did not exist on the day of the incident that triggered the personal injury claim.
Using unsafe methods to stockpile the items that will be placed on the shelves. The same charge might be placed against any business that does not keep stored items in a safe and secure spot. Here the customer is not in great danger, but staff members could be.
Possible defense against charge of premises liability
The victim was not paying attention to his or her surroundings. The victim’s actions demonstrated an absence of the duty to exhibit self-care. Victims that venture into a forbidden area forfeit their chances for winning a case that has been based on a charge of premises liability. Someone that refuses to wear an offered piece of safety gear would open the door to a defense, for the property owner that has been hit with a specific charge, such as negligent maintenance or negligent inspections. A claim that some tool used for doing repairs did not work. This claim would seem truthful, if it referred to a newly-purchased tool.