William G. Schwab and Associates
811 Blakeslee Blvd. Dr. East (PA Route 443) PO Box 56 Lehighton, PA 18235
Tel 610-377-5200 Fax 610-377-5209
NEWSLETTER
Personal Injury August 3, 2015
 
Personal Injury
Bankruptcy
Business
Criminal Law
Elder Law
Estate Planning/Probate
Real Estate
 

The Voluntary Recall of Faulty Seat Belts

Car manufacturers will voluntarily recall certain cars when faulty car parts cause injuries or death. Several manufacturers have recalled cars because ...(more)

 

Employers' Liability for Failing to Screen Potential Employees

"Negligent hiring" is a legal doctrine that holds employers liable for unlawful acts committed by their employees. The issue arises ...(more)

 

An Overview of the FDA's Policies on Recalls

When a product is defective or harmful to the public, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) may order or request ...(more)

 

"Standard of Proof" in Most Personal Injury and Other Civil Cases

Crimes are wrongful acts against society for which punishment may be imposed. Where an individual is injured through the wrongful ...(more)

 

Personal Injury Headlines

Illinois Teen Injured in Bike Wreck Awarded $910K

Personal-injury accident investigtion leads to multiple charges for Massena pair

Walmart removes personal injury lawsuit to federal court

Anderson Hospital denies allegations in personal injury lawsuit

$5 million personal injury lawsuit against city dismissed

Injuries at Sporting and Entertainment Events


The liability of property owners for injuries that occur to persons on their property is largely a creation of state law and court decisions. For this reason, the nature of a property owner's duties to individuals on the owner's property varies among states. Such duties may involve issues regarding the owner's actions and/or the owner's failure to act. Usually several factors and the particular facts of the injury control the result.

Business Owner Liability
In virtually all jurisdictions, property owners (if also business owners) that invite persons onto their property for profit have a duty to protect them from harm, if the owner:

  • Knows or should know of a danger and any unreasonable risk of harm
  • Should expect that those invited onto the property (invitees) will not discover or realize the danger, or will not protect themselves
  • Fails to exercise "reasonable care" to protect invitees
"Reasonable care" commonly depends on the circumstances and the law of the jurisdiction. Usually, however, the owner will not be liable for injuries caused by any activity or condition that is known or obvious to the invitees (i.e., apparent to a reasonable person). An exception to this exists when the owner should anticipate that the invitee may be harmed despite knowledge of the danger.

Spectators at Sporting and Other Events
In light of these general principles, property/business owners that offer or allow events for spectators must usually protect them from and warn them of risks and injuries that might easily occur during the sporting or entertainment event. Some events (i.e., automobile races) must comply with specific safety guidelines imposed by governments and/or professional associations. Concert halls, arenas and clubs must usually ensure that applicable maximum occupancy regulations are not exceeded and that all building and fire code requirements are met. Those injured as a result of a property/business owner's failure to comply may have a claim for such injuries.

Sporting events in particular often give rise to dangers for a spectator, such as being hit by a foul ball at a baseball game. The danger of being hit by a foul ball is often considered an "open and obvious" danger, and some courts have held that baseball spectators "assume" that risk. Other courts have held that a duty still exists for the owner to protect against such a foreseeable danger.

In response, most ballpark owners post warnings about the danger and provide some sort of shield behind home plate. Some courts have held that such actions are sufficient to fulfill the owner's duty as a matter of law. A 1992 Illinois case held, however, that whether the warnings and shield fulfilled the duty is a question of fact and must be decided by a jury on a case-by-case basis.

© 2013 NextClient.com, Inc.  All rights reserved.