Comparative Fault in Premise Liability Cases
California follows the doctrine of “comparative negligence” in assessing fault in premises liability lawsuits. This provides property owners with a partial defense when it can be shown that the plaintiff in the suit was not engaging in proper behavior for the setting and contributed to their own injuries to some degree.
If you have been named in a premises liability case or another type of personal injury lawsuit, you will want to contact a knowledgeable premises liability defense lawyer to determine if there is any evidence of comparative negligence. At , our lawyers have experience representing both plaintiffs and defendants in this area of law, so we understand negligence from all angles.
How Comparative Negligence Works
In states that adhere to the comparative negligence doctrine, fault is viewed as potentially shared between the defendant and the plaintiff. It is the defendant’s duty to be aware of, correct and warn visitors of dangers. The plaintiff is responsible for not engaging in reckless behavior, or intentionally ignoring information about potential dangers on the property.
In all potential premises liability situations, everyone has a responsibility to behave reasonably and to pay attention to his or her surroundings. Distractions can make a plaintiff partially or fully at fault.
How To Calculate Fault And Defend Your Company
Negligence is represented in terms of mathematical percentages in premises liability claims. Your attorney can assess the injury situation in question and help to make the case that the plaintiff was at least partially at fault, thereby reducing costs.
Expand Your Premises Liability Legal Defense Team
Hire our firm to learn more about your options in a premises liability case. Call our Redwood City office at , or use our online form. We serve clients in the Bay Area and elsewhere across California.