Using Theory of Premises Liability

The legal system expects both property owners and any injured visitors to learn and use the theory of premises liability. Owners have a duty to live up to their responsibility. Each of them must maintain or fix any condition that helps to keep those that enter a given property save from harm. An injured visitor has the right to make use of that fact.

Obligations of visitor that wants to be compensated for injury sustained on someone else’s property

Prove that the property owner was supposed to care for the premises on which the visitor sustained an injury. Personal injury lawyer in Oakville knows that to show that the owner was negligent, because he/she failed to carry out a recognized duty. For instance, an injured visitor might claim that the owner had failed to check for the presence of foreseeable dangers.

Alternately, a visitor might claim that the owner had learned about, or had discovered a foreseeable danger, but had failed to warn any visitors about that possible source of harm. Present proof of the fact that the owner’s negligence had created a situation that could harm the unwarned visitor

Show that the visitor was harmed, as a result of the fact that the owner had not ensured creation of a safe environment.

Another theory relates to the theory of premises liability.

What is that other theory? It is “implied permission.” What is the meaning of implied permission? That phrase refers to a situation where the conditions on a given property seem to welcome others to enter that same location. Moreover, the owner has not posted any warning or “no trespassing” sign.

In the absence of that warning, any stranger could feel entitled to wander into the inviting location. In other words, that stranger would have responded to the implied permission to enter. Still, the concept of implied permission does not govern the owner’s behavior during any hour of the day or night.

In fact, the law has stated that no one should feel free to enter a property between the hours of 9 pm and 6 am. Moreover, a property owner’s oral warning must be obeyed by any person that has acted in response to the concept of implied permission.

What would happen if an uninvited visitor failed to respond to the property owner’s warning. Would the property owner still have a duty to keep him or her safe from harm?

If that same visitor did not engage in prowling or loitering, then he or she should be warned about any foreseeable danger. Yet the owner would not need to issue any warning, if the uninvited victor chose to wander around aimlessly or move secretly, and did so between the hours of 9pm and 6am.