![[Contents]](../icons/rule_toc.gif){kind=icon}
The plaintiff __________ [also] seeks to recover damages based upon a claim that the defendant[s] __________ [was] [were] the [owner] [occupant] [lessor] of certain premises, and [was] [were] negligent in the [use] [maintenance] [or] [management] of such premises.
The essential elements of a claim for negligence against [an] [a] [owner] [occupant] [lessor] of premises are:
1. The defendant was the [owner] [occupant] [lessor] of premises;
2. The defendant was negligent in the [use] [maintenance] [or] [management] of such premises;
3. The negligence of the defendants was a cause of injury, damage, loss or harm to the plaintiff. | TOP |
The [owner] [occupant] [lessor] of premises is under a duty to exercise ordinary care in the [use] [maintenance] [or] [management] of such premises in order to avoid exposing [persons] [or] [other property] to an unreasonable risk of harm. [Such duty exists whether the risk of harm is caused by the natural condition of such premises or by an artificial condition created on such premises.] [Such duty exists even when the unreasonable risk of harm is caused by the criminal conduct of a third person which, in the exercise of reasonable care, is or should be foreseeable [or where the [owner] [occupant] [lessor] of the premises maintains the property in such a way as to increase the risk of criminal activity].] [Such duty is owed to persons on the premises and to persons off the premises.] A failure to fulfill this duty is negligence.
[Ordinary care is that care which persons of ordinary prudence would use in order to avoid injury to themselves or others under circumstances similar to those shown by the evidence.]
[This duty of care is owed only to such persons as the [owner] [occupant] [lessor], as a reasonably prudent person under the same or similar circumstances, should have foreseen would be exposed to such a risk of harm.]
[You shall determine whether a person under the same or similar circumstances as the defendant __________ should have foreseen that the plaintiff __________ would be exposed to an unreasonable risk of harm. If you so find, you are instructed that the defendant __________ owed plaintiff __________ such a duty of care and you should determine if the defendant exercised such care, considering all the surrounding circumstances shown by the evidence.] | TOP |
A risk of harm is unreasonable if the degree of the risk outweighs the usefulness of a person's conduct. In balancing risk against usefulness you must consider the extent to which a person's objectives can be adequately advanced or protected by another and less dangerous course. A particular risk is unreasonable if such person reasonably can accomplish the same result by other conduct which involves less opportunity for harm to others.
In determining whether any [act] [or] [omission] by a person constituted an unreasonable risk of harm, you should consider all of the surrounding circumstances shown by the evidence. | TOP |
In determining whether any act or omission of the defendant constituted an unreasonable risk of harm, you should consider all of the surrounding circumstances shown by the evidence.
These surrounding circumstances include the likelihood of injury, the probable seriousness of injury, the burden of reducing or avoiding the risk, and the defendant's degree of control over the risk-creating defect. | TOP |
The [owner] [occupant] [lessor] of premises is under a duty to refrain from intentional harm or from willful or wanton injury to persons thereon. | TOP |
Ordinarily, a lessor of commercial property owes no duty of care to plaintiff for defective conditions on leased property which did not exist on such property before possession of the property was transferred to the lessee, if the premises were reasonably safe at the time the tenant[s] took possession.
However at such times as the lessor has control of the property, [either before the tenant has taken possession] [or upon renewal of a lease[, if lessor has the right of reentry pursuant to the terms of the lease]][,] [or __________] the lessor has a duty to inspect the premises and to make them reasonably safe from dangerous conditions that are discovered or that would have been discovered by a reasonable inspection.
In making an inspection, the lessor need not take extraordinary measures or make unreasonable expenditures of time and money. However, when there is a potential serious danger which is foreseeable, a lessor in control of such property should anticipate the danger and conduct a reasonable inspection. The lessor's obligation is to do what is reasonable under the circumstances.
A failure to perform any such duty is negligence. | TOP |
The [owner] [occupant] [lessor] of premises is not negligent and is not liable for an injury suffered by a person on the premises which resulted from a dangerous or defective condition of which the [owner] [occupant] [lessor] had no knowledge, unless the condition existed for such a length of time that if the [owner] [occupant] [lessor] had exercised reasonable care in inspecting the premises the __________ (owner-occupant-lessor) would have discovered the condition in time to remedy it or to give warning before the injury occurred.
[Nor may the [owner] [occupant] [lessor] be found to be negligent if, having exercised ordinary care, [he] [or] [she] discovered such a condition before the time of the injury, but not long enough before to provide [him] [or] [her] the time reasonably necessary to remedy the condition or to give reasonable warning or to provide reasonable protection.] | TOP |
[Knowledge of a defective or dangerous condition created by an [owner] [occupant] [lessor] or [his] [or] [her] employee acting within the scope of [his] [or] [her] employment, is imputed to the [owner] [occupant] [lessor] from the time of its creation.]
[Knowledge of any defective or dangerous condition obtained by an employee of an [owner] [occupant] [lessor] in the course and scope of [his] [or] [her] employment is imputed to the [owner] [occupant] [lessor].] | TOP |
[Criminal conduct of a third person is ordinarily an intervening cause not reasonably foreseeable by a landlord. However,] where a landlord has notice of previous conduct of a criminal nature by third persons on or near the landlord's premises, a landlord of property owes a duty to a tenant to take reasonable action to protect a tenant from reasonably foreseeable conduct of a criminal nature by third persons [in common areas of the landlord's building] or to warn the tenant of particular dangers of which the landlord has notice. The landlord's failure to perform such duty is negligence. However, if the landlord's action or inaction was what might be reasonably expected of a person of ordinary prudence under similar circumstances who desired to comply with the law, the landlord is not negligent. | TOP |
The proprietor of a business establishment owes a duty of care to customers when they come upon the business premises at the proprietor's express or implied invitation.
The business premises include property owned, possessed or controlled by the proprietor.
This duty of care requires the proprietor to exercise reasonable care to discover whether accidental, negligent or intentionally harmful acts of third persons are occurring or are likely to occur on the business premises. If a proprietor knows, or should know that such acts are occurring or are likely to occur, the proprietor has the further duty to either give the customer a warning adequate to enable the visitor to avoid the harm, or otherwise to protect the visitor against such harm.
A warning will not be adequate when it is apparent that because of a lack of time or the character of the conduct to be expected, it will not be effective to give protection.
A failure by the proprietor to perform any such duty of care is negligence.
The proprietor does not have a duty to control the misconduct of third persons which the proprietor has no reason to anticipate, or no reasonable opportunity or means to prevent, or which occurs on property neither owned, possessed nor controlled by the proprietor. | TOP |
An [owner] [occupant] [lessor] of premises who employs a contractor to perform work thereon, but who remains in control of the premises where the work is being done, owes to employees of [the contractor] [a subcontractor] a duty to exercise ordinary care in the management of such premises in order to avoid exposing such employees to an unreasonable risk of harm.
[If, however, the contractor has taken complete control of the premises where the accident occurred and the [owner] [occupant] [lessor] has retained no control of that part of the premises [except to the extent of determining if the work was being done according to contract], then the [owner] [occupant] [lessor] owes no such duty of care to the employees of [the contractor] [a subcontractor].] | TOP |
A general contractor owes to the employees of a subcontractor a duty to exercise reasonable care to keep the premises over which the general contractor has control in a reasonably safe condition and to provide a safe place for such employees to work. It is also the duty of a general contractor to warn such employees of any danger which is not obvious and which is known to, or discoverable by, the general contractor in the exercise of ordinary care. | TOP |
Ordinarily the owner of property abutting a public sidewalk is under no duty to keep the sidewalk in a safe condition.
However, if the owner has altered the sidewalk for the benefit of [his] [or] [her] property apart from the ordinary use for which the sidewalk was designed, the owner does have a duty to use ordinary care in making such alteration and in keeping the altered portion of the sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition.
[This duty would exist even if the alteration was done by an earlier owner, or by the city at the request of a property owner.]
A failure to fulfill such duty is negligence.
[A condition is not an unsafe condition if the risk created by the condition was of such a minor, trivial, or insignificant nature in view of the surrounding circumstances that it did not create a substantial risk of injury when such sidewalk was used with due care in a manner in which it was reasonably foreseeable that it would be used.] | TOP |
Ordinarily the owner of property abutting a public sidewalk is under no duty to keep the sidewalk in a safe condition.
However, if the owner has altered the sidewalk for the benefit of [his] [or] [her] property apart from the ordinary use for which the sidewalk was designed, the owner does have a duty to use ordinary care in making such alteration and in keeping the altered portion of the sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition.
[This duty would exist even if the alteration was done by an earlier owner, or by the city at the request of a property owner.]
A failure to fulfill such duty is negligence.
[A condition is not an unsafe condition if the risk created by the condition was of such a minor, trivial, or insignificant nature in view of the surrounding circumstances that it did not create a substantial risk of injury when such sidewalk was used with due care in a manner in which it was reasonably foreseeable that it would be used.] | TOP |
When the activities of a business are conducted in such a manner as to create a hazard on an abutting sidewalk and the operator of the business knows or has reason to know of such fact, such person has a duty to use reasonable care to remove the hazard within a reasonable time, and the failure to do so is negligence.
[A person has reason to know of a hazard when it has existed for such a length of time that if [he] [or] [she] had exercised reasonable care in inspecting the area [he] [or] [she] would have discovered the hazard in time before the injury to remedy it or to give warning.] | TOP |
A pedestrian who is exercising ordinary care and making normal use of a public sidewalk has a right to assume it is in reasonably safe condition, unless such person knows or reasonably should know it is not in such condition. The exercise of ordinary care does not require one to look fixedly at the walk in front nor be on constant lookout for danger. However, one is required to use ordinary care for one's own safety and, in that regard, reasonably to use eyesight and other faculties for one's own safety. | TOP |