Such a level of care generally includes a duty to maintain, warn, and inspect. Generally, possessors of land owe invitees a duty to exercise ordinary care and prudence to keep their premises in a reasonably safe condition for the invitees’ use. Constantineau v DCI Food Equip, Inc, 195 Mich App 511, 491 NW2d 262 (1992). A plaintiff’s status may also change if they move from one area of the premises to another. Each of these terms has a special meaning in the law. Swartz v Huffmaster Alarms Sys, Inc, 145 Mich App 431, 377 NW2d 393 (1985). In other words, the plaintiff’s status as an invitee, a licensee, or a trespasser determines what level of care is owed. at 438 see also Rodis v Herman Kiefer Hosp, 142 Mich App 425, 370 NW2d 18 (1985).Īlthough the possessor has a duty to act with reasonable care, the measure of what is considered reasonable care varies based on the extent to which the relationship benefits the possessor. As with negligence cases generally, duty is a question for the court to decide. Premises liability cases are like other negligence cases in that the plaintiff must prove the following elements: (1) a duty owed to the plaintiff by the defendant, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) an injury proximately resulting from that breach, and (4) damages.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |