Common Defenses to Premises Liability Claims

At Oleen Law Firm, we’ve represented many clients in personal injury cases, including premises liability claims. These cases arise when someone is injured on another person’s property due to unsafe conditions. 

While property owners have a legal obligation to maintain their premises in a safe condition, they also have the right to defend themselves when accused of negligence. As part of our commitment to providing thorough representation, it’s essential to understand the common defenses used in premises liability cases under Kansas law.

In Kansas, premises liability claims can be filed if a person is injured on someone else’s property due to hazardous conditions that the property owner failed to address. However, just because an injury occurred on a property does not automatically mean the property owner is liable. 

Property owners and their legal representation often present defenses that argue they were not negligent, or that the injured party shares responsibility for the accident. As a personal injury law firm, we’re familiar with the various defenses property owners may raise and how they can affect the outcome of a case.

Contributory Negligence and Comparative Fault

In Kansas, the principle of contributory negligence or comparative fault is an important consideration in premises liability cases. This defense asserts that the injured party was partially or entirely responsible for the injury. 

Under Kansas law, if an individual is found to be partially at fault for their own injury, their compensation may be reduced in proportion to their degree of fault.

For example, if someone slips and falls in a store because they were not paying attention or were rushing through an aisle, the property owner may argue that the individual’s lack of caution contributed to the injury. 

The defense may claim that the plaintiff’s own actions were a significant factor in causing the accident. If the court finds the plaintiff is partially at fault, their damages could be reduced. This is a common defense raised by property owners to reduce or eliminate liability in personal injury claims.

In Kansas, comparative fault doesn’t bar a claim completely, but it does play a crucial role in determining the final award. If the injured party is deemed to be more than 50% responsible for the injury, they may be barred from recovering damages. This defense can be a powerful argument, depending on the facts of the case.

Open and Obvious Danger

Another defense commonly used in premises liability cases is the “open and obvious danger” argument. Under this defense, the property owner may claim that the hazard that caused the injury was so obvious that the injured person should have seen and avoided it. 

For instance, if there’s a large, visible puddle of water on a store’s floor, the property owner may argue that the person should have noticed the puddle and taken precautions to avoid it.

In Kansas, property owners may not be required to address an obvious danger if it’s something that a reasonable person would expect to encounter in a particular environment. 

The argument behind this defense is that the property owner shouldn’t be held responsible for an accident that could have been easily avoided if the injured party had simply paid attention to their surroundings.

However, while this personal injury defense can be effective in some cases, it’s not always successful. If the dangerous condition wasn’t only obvious but also unusually dangerous or if the property owner knew of the hazard and failed to take any action, the court may still hold the property owner liable. 

For instance, if the puddle was left unattended for an extended period of time or if the property owner had received prior complaints about it, the open and obvious danger defense may not be sufficient to avoid liability.

Assumption of Risk

The assumption of risk defense asserts that the injured party voluntarily accepted the risks associated with an activity, and as a result, the property owner shouldn’t be held liable for any injuries that occur. 

This defense is often used in premises liability cases where the injured person was participating in a potentially dangerous activity on the property, such as sports or recreational activities.

For example, if an individual is injured while participating in a sporting event on a property, the property owner may argue that the injured party knew about the risks associated with the activity and voluntarily assumed those risks. 

In some personal injury cases, signage or waivers may be used to strengthen this defense, where participants acknowledge and accept the risks before engaging in the activity.

In Kansas, the assumption of risk defense is typically limited to situations where the injured party knowingly and voluntarily engaged in a risky activity. 

If the risk was hidden or not adequately disclosed, the defense may not apply. Additionally, in premises liability cases, the assumption of risk isn’t always a strong defense if the property owner fails to address a known danger that poses a significant risk to individuals on the property.

Lack of Knowledge of the Hazard

A common defense raised by property owners is the lack of knowledge or notice of the hazard. In order to hold a property owner liable for a premises liability claim in Kansas, the plaintiff must prove that the owner knew or should have known about the dangerous condition and failed to take appropriate action to address it.

For example, if someone falls due to a broken step or a spill in a grocery store, the property owner may argue that they were unaware of the hazard. The defense may claim that the dangerous condition existed for such a short period that it was impossible for the property owner or their staff to notice it in time to fix it.

Under Kansas law, property owners are generally not liable for hazards that they had no knowledge of or had no reasonable way of discovering. However, this defense isn’t always successful, especially if the property owner should have known about the hazard. 

For example, if a spill had been left unattended for a long period of time, or if the property owner had received prior complaints about the dangerous condition, the personal injury  court may still find the owner liable, despite their claim of ignorance.

Compliance With Safety Standards

Another potential defense in premises liability cases is that the property owner complied with all relevant safety standards, codes, and regulations. 

If a property owner can demonstrate that they followed the proper maintenance procedures, conducted regular safety inspections, and adhered to industry standards, they may argue that they shouldn’t be held liable for the injury.

For example, in cases where a person is injured due to a slip and fall caused by poor lighting or an uneven surface, the property owner may present evidence that they had recently inspected the property and made repairs according to building codes or industry standards. 

By demonstrating that they took all reasonable steps to maintain a safe environment, the property owner may successfully defend against a personal injury premises liability claim.

While compliance with safety standards can serve as a strong defense, it’s not always conclusive. The court will look at the specific facts of the case to determine if the property owner’s actions were adequate under the circumstances. 

Even if the owner adhered to safety codes, they may still be held responsible if the condition was unusually dangerous or if they failed to address the problem within a reasonable time frame.

The Next Steps

At Oleen Law Firm, we understand the importance of defending your rights in a premises liability and personal injury  case. We’re proud to serve Manhattan, Kansas, and the nearby area of Junction City. Contact us today to speak with an experienced personal injury attorney.