Consider These Steps To Limit Premises Liability

(Originally published in The Business Journal)  

A customer injures herself after falling on the slippery tile in your public restroom. A delivery man trips on the steps leading into your show room.  A vendor hurts his back when the conference room chair collapses.

Are you legally responsible?

The answer depends on a variety of factors that courts consider in premises liability cases.

Although predicting the outcome of any premises liability lawsuit is always dangerous, some general rules have evolved that continue to apply in all premises liability cases.

The owner is expected to keep the aisles and walkways clear

That means keeping them free of electric cords, tools, banana peels, cartons, and a myriad of other items that can pose a hazard to an unsuspecting patron.

An injured victim may claim that danger from these items was undetectable, even while the property owner maintains that the person simply was not paying attention.

Ohio courts recognize “open and obvious” situations

In a 2002 case, the Ohio Supreme Court provided some measure of protection to property owners by holding that when a condition is “open and obvious” the injured party should have observed the condition and avoided the hazard.

While property owners hoped that the “open and obvious” defense would limit their exposure in future cases, that defense has been subjected to attack on a number of fronts.  For example, some patrons have successfully argued that their attention was diverted by flashy advertising displays in show rooms.

Darkness remains an “open and obvious” condition that cannot be ignored.  Customers injured while walking into a dark and unfamiliar area are unlikely to recover in court.

A premises owner is not liable merely because a customer is injured on the premises

To prevail in court, the injured party must show that the owner failed to warn of a concealed danger that caused the injury. 

Evidence will be presented of the nature of the hazardous condition, the length of time that the condition existed, and whether or not the property owner had knowledge of the existence of the condition.  These types of factors vary so much that predictability is hard to come by. 

In one case, two minutes of dripping water was held to be insufficient notice to the store owner to clean up the situation.  In another case, evidence that the water was dripping for two to five minutes was deemed sufficient to hold the store owner liable.

The so-called “two-inch rule” has been weakened

In cases involving uneven steps or cracked pavements, Ohio courts used to allow variances of two inches off level before liability would be imposed.  The Supreme Court held in a Cincinnati case that a sidewalk defect of 1 1/2 inches was sufficiently dangerous to permit an injured pedestrian to recover.

The specific measurements of the defect, the length of time the danger was in place, the lighting conditions, the number of customers in the area – all of these factors will be taken into account to determine liability in a given case.

Winter conditions pose a host of problems for property owners and their guests

Parking lot injury cases caused by snow and ice are generally tough to win in Ohio courts for the injured party. 

For the most part, an owner will not be held liable for the natural accumulation of snow in a parking area.

Snow in a parking lot is not rendered unnatural when it has been packed by automobile or foot traffic.  Routine snow plowing of parking lots is generally viewed as a natural condition, but some cases have been won when the plowing was done in such a negligent fashion as to create an unreasonably dangerous condition.

A defective canopy or leaking downspout can create an unnatural condition in the judgment of a court. 

Now is the time to check the approaches to your place of business to minimize your risk.

Carey can be reached at tcarey@hhmlaw.com or at (330) 392-1541.