|
(詳細はtorts that occur on the real property. This can range from things from "injuries caused by a variety of hazardous conditions, including open excavations, uneven pavement, standing water, crumbling curbs, wet floors, uncleared snow, icy walks, falling objects, inadequate security, insufficient lighting, concealed holes, improperly secured mats, or defects in chairs or benches".〔(Premises Liability and Slip and Fall ). Retrieved June 27, 2011.〕 In sum: For premises liability to apply: # The defendant must possess the land or "premises".〔(ExpertLaw website ). Retrieved January 12, 2009.〕 # The plaintiff must be an invitee or, in certain cases, a licensee.〔〔(Article on premises liability ). Retrieved January 12, 2009.〕 Traditionally, trespassers were not protected under premises liability law.〔〔 However, in 1968, the California Supreme Court issued a vastly influential opinion, ''Rowland v. Christian'', 69 Cal.2d 108 (1968), which abolished the significance of legal distinctions such as invitee, licensee, or trespasser in determining whether one could hold the possessor of a premises liable for harm. This opinion led to changes in the law in many other states in the United States, and is viewed as a seminal opinion in the development of the law of premises liability. # There must be negligence -- a breach of the duty of care -- or some other wrongful act.〔 In recent years, the law of premises liability has evolved to include cases where a person is injured on the premises of another by a third person's wrongful act, such as an assault. These cases are sometimes referred to as "third party premises liability" cases and they represent a highly complex and dynamic area of tort law. They pose especially complex legal issues of duty and causation because the injured party is seeking to hold a possessor or owner of property directly or vicariously liable when the immediate injury-producing act was, arguably, not caused by the possessor or owner. ==Common law of premises liability== At common law, in the case of landowners, the extent of their duty of care to those who came on their premises varied depending on whether a person was classified as a trespasser, licensee, or invitee. This rule was eventually abolished in some common law jurisdictions. For example, England enacted the Occupiers Liability Act 1957. Similarly, in the 1968 landmark case of ''Rowland v. Christian'',〔''Rowland v. Christian'', (69 Cal. 2d 108 ) (1968).〕 the Supreme Court of California replaced the old classifications with a general duty of care to ''all'' persons on one's land, regardless of their status. After several highly publicized and controversial cases, the California Legislature enacted a statute in 1985 that partially restored immunity to landowners from some types of lawsuits from trespassers.〔''Calvillo-Silva v. Home Grocery'', (19 Cal. 4th 714 ) (1998).〕 Colorado's highest court adopted the ''Rowland'' unified duty of care analysis in 1971. The resulting explosion of lawsuits against Colorado landowners caused the state legislature to enact the Colorado Premises Liability Act in 1986, which enacted a cleaned-up statutory version of the common law classifications ''and'' simultaneously expressly displaced all common law remedies against landowners in order to prevent state courts from again expanding their liability. In the Republic of Ireland, under the Occupiers' Liability Act, 1995, the duty of care to trespassers, visitors and "recreational users" can be restricted by the occupier; provided reasonable notice is given, for which a prominent notice at the usual entrance to the premises usually suffices.〔 〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Premises liability」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|