How Do Obviously Unsafe Conditions Factor Into A Premises Liability Case?
Many factors come into play when trying or settling a premises liability case. Whether the hazard or dangerous conditions were obvious is certainly a factor. If you suffered a serious injury and believe you have a premises liability case, consult San Mateo attorneys who can evaluate the prospects of pursuing legal action.
California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) 1004, called Obviously Unsafe Conditions, states that "if an unsafe condition of the property is so obvious that a person could reasonably be expected to observe it, then the [owner/lessor/ occupier/one who controls the property] does not have to warn others about the dangerous condition." However clear and simple that statement may seem, in the case Osborn v. Mission Ready Mix (1990), the court ruled that defendants have a duty to take precautions to protect against the risk of harm from an obviously unsafe condition, even if they do not have a duty to warn. Thus, juries still look at landowners' responsibilities to maintain safe premises when arriving at a verdict in a slip-and-fall or some other type of premises liability injury.
One court (in Donohue v. San Francisco) compared the obvious danger factor with the assumption of risk doctrine. The court decided that plaintiffs assume a risk when they know that danger is involved and they enter the premises anyway. Whether you are a landowner or an injury victim, case laws are often complicated, and having an experienced injury attorney in San Mateo is crucial when it comes to protecting your rights.
Sarrail, Castillo & Hall, LLP has extensive experience handling premises liability cases, representing both plaintiffs and defendants. Our perspective of both sides in a case enables us to obtain successful outcomes for our clients.