Premesis Liability Case Appealed; Homeowner Expected to be Liable
A recent personal injury lawsuit in Connecticut sought to determine what duties a homeowner owes to a business invitee. A business invitee is someone invited on land or property for business reasons. In this case, the business invitee was invited to the land by the homeowner to assist in performing electrical work.
Here, the invitee Plaintiff fell through an opening in the third floor of an uninhabited home. The home was being renovated and while assisting in electrical renovations, the invitee fell through the hole, sustaining severe injuries due to hazardous conditions. The injured invitee brought a claim for negligence against the homeowner for the personal injuries sustained.
The district court found the plaintiff, business invitee, could not recover. In order to recover, the elements of a basic negligence claim must be proven, establishing a homeowner’s duty to warn or protect the invitee, a breach of that duty, and an injury that was caused by the breach. The district court said the invitee knew the home was being renovated and that possible dangers involved in reconstruction were present. The court specifically said “the failure to warn an invitee of something he already knows is without legal significance.” The court found for the homeowner.
The invitee appealed claiming that even though an open and obvious danger does not require a warning, the property owner still has a duty to inspect and maintain the premises to make sure they are reasonably safe for foreseeable activities that are likely to occur while the invitee is present.
Previous courts have decided time and time again in premises liability injury cases that a possessor of land has a duty to an invitee to reasonably inspect and maintain the premises in order to render them reasonably safe, and to also warn an invitee of dangers that the invitee could not reasonably be expected to discover. But the duty to warn is not necessary where the invitee has actual knowledge of such dangerous condition.
Thus, the appellate court reversed and remanded the lower court’s decision in part, finding that the district court did not properly ascertain whether the owner reasonably inspected and maintained the premises.
Although a final judgment has not been entered, if the court can find that the owner did not care for the property so as to prevent injurious circumstances to the invitee, the homeowner will likely be found liable to the electrical worker.
As a St. Louis personal injury lawyer and senior partner at Page//Cagle, A Missouri Personal Injury Law Firm, I have been handling these cases my entire career. I have successfully and aggressively represented clients injured in similar situations.
I can be reached 24 hours a day at 314.322.8515 or toll free at 1.800.500.INJURY (4658). Call me personally and I will answer all the questions and concerns you may have. There is no fee unless we recover for you.
You can also email me at john@pagecagle.com or visit www.injuredclient.com for more information.
