Premises liability cases occur when a person is injured on someone else’s property due to a dangerous condition. Cases typically occur at someone’s home or a business. Homeowners and business owners owe a duty of care to guests on their property and they generally need to keep their guests safe from known dangerous conditions. Philadelphia premises liability cases are brought on a theory of negligence or strict liability as discussed in more detail below.
Certain factual scenarios that frequently show up in premises liability cases are described below:
It can be difficult to assess exactly how much each particular Philadelphia premises liability case will be worth it. There are various factors that determine the total compensation amount, and these factors differ for each particular situation. At the Dan Doyle Law Group, our qualified and experienced lawyer will conduct a full investigation into your case in an effort to secure the following types of compensation:
The total amount of compensation awarded will depend on a variety of factors, including the severity of the injury, whether or not a victim is disabled in any way, whether there was any shared liability, and more.
As mentioned above, two theories of recovery for premises liability claims are negligence and strict liability. Negligence claims: Plaintiffs generally try to show the following elements to prove their negligence claims:
If you have been injured due to a dangerous condition at someone’s home or place of business, contact Philadelphia premises liability attorney, Daniel S. Doyle. Our premises liability team has secured financial recoveries for our premises liability clients and we want to do the same for you. If you were injured due to a dangerous condition on someone else’s property, you deserve to be fully and fairly compensated for your injuries and damages.
Property owners here in Philadelphia and all across Pennsylvania have a legal obligation to maintain their premises free of hazards. If a lawful visitor suffers an injury on the premises and an attorney proves that the property owner’s negligence caused the injury, the victim will be able to get compensated for the injury.
In theory, that is how premises liability law is supposed to work. In practice, however, many victims struggle with obtaining financial compensation for their injury suffered on someone else’s property. Many property owners, especially those represented by skilled defense lawyers, often seek to minimize or avoid their liability in premises liability cases.
Our experienced premises liability lawyer in Philadelphia from Dan Doyle Law Group can investigate your case and build the most compelling legal strategy to prove that your injury occurred as a result of the property owner’s negligence or careless acts.
Some people have been led to believe that they will not be able to recover any compensation if they shared any fault for causing their injuries. However, that is not the case. Pennsylvania operates under a modified comparative negligence rule, which allows injury victims to recover compensation if they are 50% or less at fault for the incident that caused their injuries. If a person is found to be greater than 50% at fault, then they will not be able to recover compensation for their losses.
However, the total amount of compensation a victim is awarded will be reduced based on their percentage of fault. For example, if a jury awards $100,000 to a plaintiff who sustained an injury on another person’s property, but the jury determines that the plaintiff was 20% responsible for the incident, then the plaintiff will receive $80,000 in total damages. If the jury determines that the plaintiff was 51% responsible, then the plaintiff will receive no compensation at all.
Contrary to popular belief, homeowners are not the only parties that can be held liable under premises liability law. If you fall and get injured on a hotel’s premises, you may be able to pursue a premises liability claim against the hotel.
However, you will be required to demonstrate proof that the hotel staff knew or should have known through due diligence about the hazardous condition, but failed to remedy it or warn visitors about it.
It depends. Generally, however, property owners have a duty to ensure safe premises for their guests and visitors, which includes a duty to protect them from any reasonably foreseeable criminal acts of third parties. We emphasize the words “reasonably foreseeable” because you will have to prove that the criminal act or assault was reasonably expected under the circumstances.
For example, depending on the type of the premises and organization characteristics, property owners have a duty to provide adequate security measures to prevent the risk of criminal attacks against visitors, guests, and customers. Adequate security measures, as recognized by law, include but are not limited to:
Many assaults in Philadelphia and elsewhere in Pennsylvania occur when a person is withdrawing money from an automated teller machine (ATM). The victim of such an incident may wonder whether he or she can hold the bank of the respective ATM responsible for the assault to recover damages.
Although Pennsylvania law does not require banks to provide security against assaults at their ATMs across the state, such a duty has been recognized in multiple successful premises liability claims in recent years. More often than not, however, victims of such assaults can recover damages from the owner of the property where the ATM was located if there is evidence that the property owner failed to provide adequate security measures.
Speak to a Philadelphia premises liability attorney from Dan Doyle Law Group to establish liable parties in your case, evaluate your damages and losses, and build a strong legal case. Receive an evaluation of your case by calling today.
Free case consultation