Many assume if they are injured on another person’s property, the owner and/or the owner’s insurance is responsible for their injuries. In reality, premises liability is very tough. A recent Court of Appeals case illustrates how challenging a premises liability claim can be for someone claiming injury.[1]
A woman asked two relatives to tear down a shed behind her house. While the two relatives were dismantling the shed, the shed collapsed and injured them.
The injured family members sued. The trial court dismissed their case. The Court of Appeals agreed, upholding the result.
Different legal rules apply depending on the status of a visitor to the property. If the visitor enters a property for social or family reasons, the property owner is responsible for an injury only if the owner 1) knew or should have realized an unreasonable risk of harm existed, 2) should expect that the visitor will not discover or realize the danger, and the owner (3) failed to exercise reasonable care to protect them against the danger.
The relatives were tearing down the shed to help a family member. They were not contractors hired to do the job. The shed was not unstable until they started tearing it down, and there was no evidence the owner had reason to believe that the shed would easily collapse.
The courts concluded that the relatives tore down the shed for family/social reasons and there was no reason the owner would have known of the risk. Thus, the owner was not responsible for the injuries.
Our firm was not involved in the case described in this article.
While we turn away a lot of premises liability claims, we do accept them and have successfully settled premises liability cases and successfully litigated premises liability cases. Contact our office if you have been injured on another person’s property and would like a no-cost consultation.
[1] Montgomery v. Bishop, unpublished (38708-9-III February 2, 2023).
