Premises liability cases in Connecticut involve injuries suffered by individuals on the property of another person or entity due to a dangerous condition that was not previously made readily apparent to the victim. The property owner or management may be held liable for the damages, and the injured party may receive compensation for their suffering.
One defense that the defendant may raise is the "Open and Obvious" doctrine. This defense argues that the dangerous condition was so apparent that the plaintiff should have been aware of the risk and taken steps to avoid it.
Table of Contents
Understanding Premises Liability
Premises liability is a legal concept that holds property owners responsible for accidents that occur on their property. Property owners have a legal duty to ensure that their property is reasonably safe and free of hazards that could pose a danger to visitors.
The degree of responsibility that a property owner or manager has to ensure the safety of visitors depends on their legal status. Invitees, such as customers or guests, are owed the highest duty of care. Trespassers, however, are generally not owed a duty of care, except in certain circumstances.
The Open and Obvious Doctrine
The "Open and Obvious" doctrine is a defense that property owners and managers may raise in a premises liability case. This defense argues that the dangerous condition that caused the plaintiff’s injury was so apparent that they should have realized the risk and taken steps to avoid it.
The defense applies in cases where the plaintiff’s injury was caused by a condition that was visible and easily recognizable. If the plaintiff could have reasonably avoided the danger by avoiding the area or taking some other preventive measure, then the defendant may argue that the plaintiff was partly responsible for the injury.
Exceptions to the Open and Obvious Defense
There are some exceptions to the "Open and Obvious" defense. These exceptions recognize that even if a danger is apparent and foreseeable, the property owner may still be liable for the injury that the plaintiff suffered.
For example, if the defendant was aware of a hazard and could have reasonably anticipated that someone would be injured as a result, they may still be liable even if the hazard was open and obvious.
Contributory Negligence
Even if the plaintiff was partly responsible for their injury, they may still be able to recover damages in a premises liability case in Connecticut. Connecticut follows the doctrine of contributory negligence, which means that the plaintiff’s recovery can be reduced in proportion to their degree of fault.
For example, if the plaintiff was found to be 25% responsible for the injury, then their overall recovery would be reduced by 25%.
Conclusion
The “Open and Obvious” defense is a common defense used by property owners and managers in premises liability cases. However, it is not a fool-proof defense and there are exceptions that may apply. If you have been injured on someone else’s property, it is important to seek the advice of an experienced premises liability attorney who can assess your case and determine whether you may be entitled to compensation.