Premises Liability

State Court Finds Premises Liability Case against Government Sufficient to Proceed Toward Trial

July 20, 2016 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Michigan issued a written opinion in a premises liability case brought against a city, alleging that the condition of a road was unsafe. In the case of Kozak v. City of Lincoln Park, the appellate court determined that the lower court should not have granted the defendant city’s motion for summary judgment because the plaintiff presented a prima facie case of negligence, on which facts the government may not be entitled to immunity.

The Facts of the Case

Kozak was injured as she tripped while crossing the street in the city of Lincoln Park. According to the court’s factual summary, there was a three-inch differential in the height of two concrete surfaces that met, creating a tripping hazard. Kozak argued that this was unreasonably dangerous, that the City should have known about it, and that the failure to correct the dangerous condition was negligent.

The government had the Director of Public Services testify on its behalf that the condition at issue was not really a safety hazard and that it was still safe for public travel. The trial court then granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that there was insufficient evidence presented to overcome the hurdle of government immunity.

Plaintiff’s Procedural Mistake Results in Dismissal of Premises Liability Case

June 30, 2016 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, a Rhode Island appellate court issued a written opinion affirming the dismissal of a plaintiff’s premises liability lawsuit based on the fact that he initially failed to provide the correct date of the injury and then failed to attend a hearing on the defendant’s motion to dismiss. In the case, Santos v. Laikos, the court held that there were no extenuating circumstances excusing the plaintiff’s failure to object or attend the hearing, so dismissal was proper.

The Facts of the Case

Back on April 30, 2011, the plaintiff was injured in what he described as a “melee” that occurred at the defendant’s bar. Just short of three years later, on April 18, 2014, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the owners of the bar. However, in his complaint, the plaintiff mistakenly claimed that the incident occurred on November 4, 2010.

Rhode Island has a three-year statute of limitations in premises liability cases, and so the defendant electronically filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the statute of limitations had run by the time the plaintiff filed the lawsuit. The defendant also mailed a copy of the motion to the plaintiff. The court scheduled a hearing on the defendant’s motion, but the plaintiff failed to appear. The court granted the defendant’s motion.

The Various Theories of Recovery in a Premises Liability Case

June 23, 2016 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Premises liability lawsuits, more commonly known as slip-and-fall cases, are based on the legal theory of negligence. Essentially, these claims rely on the the duty that a landowner or occupier owes to those people who are invited onto its land. Historically, there have been three classes of “guests”: invitees, licensees, and trespassers.

Invitees are owed the highest duty from landowners. Most commonly, invitees are customers of a business. Licensees are the next-most protected group, and they consist of social guests. Finally, trespassers are owed the most minimal duty, and generally this only requires that a landowner not employ traps or other devices to intentionally harm the trespasser.

Theories of Recovery Available to Premises Liability Plaintiffs

When someone is injured on the land of another, they may file a lawsuit against the landowner. The duty owed to the plaintiff will depend on their classification above. Once the plaintiff’s status is determined, the court will then determine if the defendant violated that duty of care. This can result in one or more of several available claims. A recent premises liability case arising out of a slip-and-fall accident outside a hotel illustrates several potential theories of liability.

Hot Air Balloon Operator Not Entitled to Immunity under Recreational Use Statute

April 15, 2016 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, the state supreme court in Wisconsin issued an opinion holding that a hot air balloon operator was not entitled to immunity under the state’s recreational use statute. In the case, Roberts v. T.H.E. Insurance Co., the court determined that a hot air balloon operator is neither an owner nor an occupier of the land on which it operates, and it is therefore not entitled to immunity.

The Facts of the Case

Ms. Roberts was at a charity event hosted at a local gun club when she was injured while waiting in line to take a tethered hot air balloon ride. According to the court’s written opinion, the defendant hot air balloon operator was providing free rides to help support the charity event. People interested in taking a free ride would line up, and an employee of the hot air balloon company would hand out waivers of release for each person to sign. The wait to get up in a balloon was about 20-30 minutes.

As Ms. Roberts was waiting, a strong wind broke the balloon free of the tethers, and it came swinging into the line of those waiting to ride in the balloon. It struck Ms. Roberts, and she fell to the ground, sustaining injuries as a result. Afterwards, she filed a lawsuit against the defendant, the operator of the hot air balloon.

Court Finds Little League Not Liable for Dangerous Conditions on Field

February 23, 2016 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, the Rhode Island Supreme Court issued an opinion in a case, holding that a little league association was not liable for a parent’s injuries sustained when she fell and broke her leg in three places after stepping in a divot in the field. In the case, Carlson v. Towne of South Kingstown, the court reasoned that the little league association was not the owner of the land and did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care to inspect the field prior to its use.

The Facts of the Case

As noted above, the plaintiff was injured when she stepped in a divot in the grass, directly adjacent to a playing field where her son’s little league game was held. After her injuries, she filed a lawsuit against several parties, including the little league association.

The plaintiff presented a witness who was familiar with the field. The witness, another parent and a former assistant coach of the team, testified that divots were a routine problem on the field. He also explained that the divot was not actually on the field itself but was off to the side of right field, on the way to the dugout.

Court Dismisses Premises Liability Claim Based on Validly Signed Waiver

February 9, 2016 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier last month, an appellate court in Delaware heard an appeal of a personal injury case filed by a man who was injured while working out at a Planet Fitness facility. In the case, Ketler v. PFPA, LLC, the court ultimately affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the case, based on a valid waiver of liability form signed by the plaintiff prior to incurring his injuries.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs in the case, a man and his wife, became members of Planet Fitness back in 2010. As a precursor to their membership, the facility asked that the couple sign a membership agreement. Included in the membership agreement was a clause releasing Planet Fitness from liability for any injuries that may occur while using the company’s equipment. This included injuries that were caused by the company’s own negligence, as well as the negligence of its employees.

Fast forward to 2013, when a cable on the rowing machine that the husband was using snapped, causing him injuries as a result. Both the husband and the wife then filed a lawsuit against Planet Fitness, claiming that the husband’s injuries were due to the negligence of Planet Fitness, specifically for not properly maintaining the exercise equipment in a safe and responsible way.

Ski Injury Plaintiff’s Case Dismissed for Lack of Causation, a Critical Element in Any Negligence Case

December 10, 2015 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals decided a case that was brought by a man who was injured while skiing in Vermont. The allegations were that the ski resort was negligent for allowing “jumps” to be built on its terrain, which caused the plaintiff’s injuries. The court ultimately determined, however, that the plaintiff failed to submit adequate proof that the ski resort’s negligence in allowing the jumps to be present was the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.

The Facts of Gemmick v. Jay Peak, Inc.

In the case, Gemmick v. Jay Peak, Inc., the plaintiff was skiing with his daughter. Toward the end of the run, the plaintiff’s daughter stopped to look for her father but couldn’t find him. As it turns out, a ski patroller found the plaintiff disoriented and combative midway up the hill. The plaintiff was treated for “fractures to his left ribs and left transverse processes.”

The plaintiff could not recall what exactly had happened. However, his daughter recalled seeing a ski jump to the left of the trail near where he was injured. This led both father and daughter to conclude that another patron went off the jump and collided with the man.

Court Allows Plaintiff’s Case to Proceed Against Allegedly Negligent Gym in Premises Liability Action

June 17, 2015 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, an appellate court in California heard a premises liability case involving an injury that occurred in a gym. In the case, Jimenez v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, the plaintiff was injured while running on a treadmill in one of the defendant’s gym locations.

Evidently, the plaintiff fell backwards off the treadmill, and as she fell she hit her head on an exposed steel foot of another exercise machine that was placed less than four feet away from the rear of the treadmill. She ended up fracturing the right occipital and right temporal bones in her skull.

At trial, the plaintiff’s theory was that the gym was negligent for placing other machinery so close to the rear of the treadmill. To support her claim, she submitted the user’s manual of the treadmill into evidence, since it recommended that an area of six feet be left behind the treadmill for user safety.

Maryland Mother Sues Airport Baggage Belt Manufacturer After Losing Her Child

September 25, 2014 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

In a tragic accident that occurred in a Spanish airport in September of last year, a young mother lost her daughter in an accident involving an oversized baggage belt. According to a report by one news source, the family were on their way to a Mediterranean beach vacation, flying from London into Spain, when the accident occurred at the Alicante-Elche Airport.

Evidently, the mother was carrying her child in a car seat when she needed to free up a hand to pick up some other luggage. She set the car seat with her child in it on a stationary luggage belt used for oversize luggage. At the time, it was not on and was not moving. However, the weight from the car seat caused the belt to start up, tossing the young child from her car seat.

The baby was caught between two belts and eventually died from head injuries she sustained as a result.

Amusement Park Safety in Ocean City and Premises Liability

September 18, 2014 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

In a recent article published by Delmarva Now, one inspector for an amusement park in Ocean City, Maryland discussed the safety of the rides, his job in keeping them safe, and what happens when there is a safety issue.

The article explains that, each year, inspectors are charged with going through all of the rides and making sure that they are safe for the public. However, despite their periodic inspections, problems do arise that can threaten the public’s safety. For example, below is a list of the repairs that were required to be made just last year:

Corroded lap bar on the Tornado ride, Jolly Roger at the Pier (May 23);
Repair self-locking latch, replace cotter pin, tape torn padding, Zipper at Trimper’s (April 8);
Replace corroded steel flooring, Pirate Ship ride at Trimper’s (April 21);
Replace bad steel on trailer and track connections, Sooper Jet at Trimper’s (April 22);
Keep two seats out of service until pin cover repaired, Giant Wheel at Jolly Roger at the Pier (May 1); and
Replace worn seat belts and have electrical wires properly covered, bumper cars at Jolly Roger on Coastal Highway (May 20).