Law Office of James M. Stanley
Call Us Today(817) 591-4222
Se Habla Español
  • Home
  • Attorneys
  • Firm Overview
  • Personal Injury
  • Wrongful Death
  • Blog
  • Case Results
  • Contact Us
  • Our office
  • In memory of Christi Stanley
  • Call Today
  • Email Us
  • Our Map
  • Menu
  • We Take the Time To Understand Your Story

    Why Hire Us
  • We Tailor Our Solutions to Fit Your Needs

    Free Consultation
  • We Stand at Your Side from Start to Finish

    View Our Results
Blogs 2021 July Why Are Businesses So Vulnerable to a Premises Liability Claim?
Previous Post  |  Next Post

Why Are Businesses So Vulnerable to a Premises Liability Claim?

Posted By Law Office of James M. Stanley || 29-Jul-2021

Some people have an inherent distrust of personal injury law. They look at incidents like a slip and fall case and roll their eyes. You hear them say things like, “If someone slips on ice, they’re just being clumsy. Why is a business responsible for that?” Skepticism aside, these detractors raise an interesting question. If people naturally slip on ice, rain puddles, or other natural hazards in a parking lot, why is a business held responsible?

People who visit a property are legally classified in various ways. A customer’s legal classification grants them extra protection. This is why businesses are often held responsible for their customer’s injuries.

Property Visitors

Invitees

When a customer enters a business property, they are an “invitee.” They could be there to make a specific purchase; they could be there with a general idea of what they want; or they could be just browsing. Their intent to spend money or not is irrelevant. If someone is at a place of business, and they do not work there, they are invitees. Property owners and business managers are expected to provide the utmost care to their invitees. But why? What makes an invitee so special?

Imagine a comic book store, and consider the reason why everyone is present at this location. The owner bought, built, or rented a space for the specific purpose of bringing in customers. They did not invest in this store out of altruism. They want to make money, and customers are the only way for that to happen. Customers are the very reason for this property’s existence. That is why, in the eyes of the law, invitees are protected at a business.

Licensees

When someone enters a private residence, they are a “licensee.” Private property owners have far less responsibility for the safety of their visitors. They cannot, however, be grossly negligent. They must warn their visitors of any unexpected dangers on their property. Beyond that, they don’t need “wet floor” signs or any of the extra precautions you would see at a business.

Visitors are not the ostensible purpose of a private residence, so owners are not responsible to take extra care of them. The property exists primarily for the owner’s use. Any visitors are given “license” to use the property at the owner’s discretion. This is unlike a business, which is open to the general public.

Trespassers

Even trespassers are granted protections under the law. It may be stretching the definition of the word to call them “visitors.” They have no “invitation” or “license” to be where they are. Even so, trespassers still have a reasonable expectation of safety. In legal terms, this essentially means that you cannot leave traps for trespassers. You could, theoretically, leave mouse traps all over the floor for an intruder, but you must warn them in advance. You need a clear, visible warning that you have booby-trapped your property. It is “unreasonable” for an intruder to be on the lookout for traps, therefore doing so is illegal.

The “attractive nuisance” doctrine grants extra protections to trespassing children. This legal standard operates with the assumption that children cannot always comprehend the consequences of their actions. When your property has items that look fun and inviting, children may wander onto the premises. If they hurt themselves, you could be held responsible. What is or isn’t an attractive nuisance is subjective, and the law expects you to use your common sense. Swimming pools, abandoned cars, trampolines, and the like will probably tempt children onto your land. As the property owner, you are responsible for erecting sound barriers between attractive, dangerous items and the outside world.

If you’ve been hurt on business property, contact our office today. We can review your case. If your injuries are the result of a business’s negligence, we may be able to help you seek compensation. Reach out online, our call our office at (817) 591-4222.

Share Post

Our Areas of Practice

  • Bicycle Accidents
  • Car Accidents
  • Catastrophic Injuries
  • Child Injuries
  • Construction Accidents
  • Electrocution
  • Fire & Explosions
  • Motorcycle Accidents
  • Pedestrian Accidents
  • Premises Liability
  • Product Liability
  • Trucking Accidents
  • Workplace Injuries
  • Wrongful Death

Start with a Free Case Consultation Today

The first step is easy. Tell us your story and we will give you a free evaluation.

Send My Information

The following is a sampling of some of the many cases we have had the privilege to handle on behalf of our clients. Each case is unique and must be evaluated on its own merits. Past results do not predict future results.​​

  • Catastrophic High Pressure Water Injury Resulting in Ruptured Colon, Infections, Multiple Surgeries Required

    NET TO CLIENT $3,069,546.66

  • Catastrophic Brain Injury/Motor Vehicle Accident

    NET TO CLIENT $3,018,051.78

  • Electrocution involving Defective Product

    NET TO CLIENT $2,491,510.87

  • Wrongful Death caused by Employer Negligence

    NET TO CLIENT $1,119,736.98

  • Grandmother seriously injured when rear-ended by 18-wheeler oil

    NET TO CLIENT $977,516.95

  • Wrongful Death due to Employer Negligence

    NET TO CLIENT $852,773.73

  • Wrongful Death caused by Employer Negligence.

    NET TO CLIENT $841,000.00

  • Catastrophic Injury caused by Defective Product.

    NET TO CLIENT $714,000.00

  • Wrongful Death caused by Employer Negligence

    NET TO CLIENT $728,664.19

  • Serious injury caused by 18-Wheeler blocking road

    NET TO CLIENT $584,309.41

  • Wrongful Death caused by Medical Malpractice.

    NET TO CLIENT $443,360.00

  • Wrongful Death and Survival Action

    NET TO CLIENT $461,423.23

  • Wrongful Death of a Fetus and Serious Personal Injury

    NET TO CLIENT $584,062.75

  • Wrongful Deaths

    NET TO CLIENT $532,211.06

  • Wrongful Death of a child

    NET TO CLIENT $499,266.40

  • Serious injuries to driver of 18-wheeler

    NET TO CLIENT $465,230.35

  • Wrongful Death caused by Medical Malpractice.

    NET TO CLIENT $359,520.00

  • Wrongful Death of a Child

    NET TO CLIENT $303,070.11

  • Wrongful Death of a Child

    NET TO CLIENT $380,345.57

  • Wrongful Death caused by physician negligence

    NET TO CLIENT$345,526.90

  • Serious Personal Injury

    NET TO CLIENT $352,813.23

  • Wrongful Death of a Child

    NET TO CLIENT $320,706.81

  • Medical negligence by hospital

    NET TO CLIENT $284,156.68

  • Wrongful Death Alcohol-Related Accident

    NET TO CLIENT $341,061.50


*The amounts reflected are the actual dollar amounts received by clients after deduction of attorney’s fees and expenses.
View More Results
  • Firm Overview
  • Attorneys
  • Site Map
  • Contact Us
Law Office of James M. Stanley

Call Today (817) 591-4222

Law Office of James M. Stanley -Fort Worth Personal Injury Lawyer
2200 Hemphill Street, Fort Worth, TX 76110 View Map
Call Today (817) 591-4222
Local (817) 335-7140
Website: https://www.law-jms.com/
© 2023 All Rights Reserved.

* James Stanley is the only attorney of the Law Office of James M. Stanley that has been inducted into the Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum and Million Dollar Advocates Forum

Internet Marketing Experts The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.