Our law firm was not involved in the lawsuit described in this article.
The Washington Court of Appeals recently upheld the dismissal of a case in which a person was injured on another’s land. The injured party was a truck driver who had been inspecting a load and fell while walking on an ungraded area of natural vegetation and injured her ankle.[1]She had testified that she had walked this are many times before and it “wasn’t manicured like the front lawn”.
The injured party argued the risk of injury was foreseeable and that the landowner failed to exercise reasonable care to protect the truck drivers from injury. She submitted her deposition testimony that the area was poorly lit and that she believed the hole was created when electrical conduit to a nearby light pole was installed. She also submitted a declaration from a lead night driver who testified that drivers routinely walked on the grassy area in order to verify and inspect a load.
The Court noted that there is no dispute that the landowner owed a duty of reasonable care. But a landowner is only liable to an invitee for physical harm caused by a dangerous condition on the land if the landowner:
(a) knows or by the exercise of reasonable care would discover the condition, and should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk of harm to such invitees, and
(b) should expect that they will not discover or realize the danger, or will fail to protect themselves against it, and
(c) fails to exercise reasonable care to protect them against the danger.
Moreover, a landowner is not generally liable to invitees for harm caused by obvious dangers.
The court concluded that the landowner met its initial burden of proof by showing there was no evidence to support the injured party’s claim that it knew or should have known that the grassy area created a dangerous or unsafe condition.
In response, injured party did not set forth specific facts showing there were genuine issues of material fact that the landowner knew or should have known the natural grassy area created an unreasonable risk of harm.
The injured party testified that she had walked on the grassy area many times before and knew that the area was an ungraded grassy area.
The Court upheld dismissal of the claim on summary judgment.
This decision illustrates the point that the often held belief that if you are injured on someone else’s property they or there insurance company must pay the claim is simply false. Liability is not automatic just because you were on someone else’s property.
On the contrary, slip and fall cases can be the hardest to prove. If you were injured on someone else’s property and you believe they may have been at fault you should speak to attorney early to preserve your rights.
[1] Narrance v. Ball Metal Beverage Container Corp., No. 63399-6-I(April 5, 2010).