Amherst Personal Injury Attorney
 

 

Property Owner's Duty

New York law provides that owners and occupiers of land owe a duty to each entrant to exercise ordinary, reasonable care under the circumstances. Basso v. Miller, 40 N.Y.2d 233, 352 N.E.2d 868 (1976). This rule means that a property owner must take reasonable steps to ensure that the environment is safe to parties that may foreseeably come upon the premises. Unfortunately, there is no precise way to measure what is “reasonable,” though the law defines the term as what a person of ordinary intelligence and judgment would do under identical circumstances. Whether a landowner’s actions constitute “reasonable care under the circumstances” is a heavily litigated issue and this standard is susceptible to varying interpretations by a jury.

Historically, landowners owed differing degrees of responsibility to different classifications of people who came onto the landowner’s property. Property owners owed the highest degree of care to invitees, those persons invited onto the property for business reasons, such as customers of a business and job applicants. When invitees entered the property, owners owed a duty to inspect for and discover unknown dangers. Property owners owed a lesser duty of care to licensees, social guests permitted on the property for social purposes. The property owner was only required to take reasonable care to protect licensees from hazardous risks of which the owner is already aware. Trespassers, those not authorized to be on the premises, were owed "zero duty" where property owners were merely responsible for avoiding willfully injuring trespassers.

New York no longer imposes premises liability determined by the plaintiff’s status as an invitee, licensee, or trespasser. To the contrary, New York courts apply a single standard of care whereby the landowner’s duty is to “act reasonably to maintain safe conditions in view of all circumstances including likelihood of injury, seriousness thereof and burden of avoiding risk, with likelihood of plaintiff’s presence primary factor in determining foreseeability.” Basso v. Miller, 40 N.Y.2d 233 (1976). Since the invitee, licensee, or trespasser distinctions were abandoned, the standard of reasonable care under the circumstances in a premises liability case “should be no different than that applied in the usual negligence action.” Those injured on another's property due to the property owner's negligence may be awarded monetary damages for their injuries.

If you or a loved one has been injured in a slip and fall accident, call Hogan Willig now at 866.590.4603 or CLICK HERE TO SUBMIT A SIMPLE CASE FORM. Don't delay! You may have a valid claim and be entitled to compensation for your injuries, but a lawsuit must be filed before the statute of limitations expires.

<< back
Contact Buffalo Personal Injury Lawyer
New York Personal Injury Case Review
Hogan Willig - , New York
Hogan Willig - , New York
Hogan Willig - , New York
Hogan Willig - , New York

Hogan Willig - , New York

 
FIRM PROFILE PRACTICE AREAS FAQ RESOURCES CONTACT US    BLOG   

The above is not legal advice. That can only come from a qualified attorney who is familiar with all the facts and circumstances of a particular, specific case and the relevant law. See Terms of Use.

Hogan Willig | 1 John James Audubon Pkwy | Amherst, NY 14228
Phone:  866.590.4603 | Fax:  716.636.7606

HoganWillig is a full service law firm covering real estate, personal injury, medical malpractice, criminal, traffic, disability, tax, family, corporate and bankruptcy law.  Conveniently located with offices in Amherst, Buffalo, and Lockport.

The dedicated attorneys at HoganWillig represent clients throughout Western New York: Buffalo, Amherst, Lockport, Akron, Alden, Cheektowaga, Clarence, Depew, East Aurora, Elma, Getzville, Grand Island, Hamburg, Kenmore, Lackawanna, Lancaster, Lewiston, Niagara Falls, North Tonawanda, Snyder, Tonawanda, West Seneca, Wheatfield, Williamsville, Youngstown, Erie County, and Niagara County.

COPYRIGHT 2008 HoganWillig