If you need help now, call us at: (470) 225-7710

Blog

AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION IN PREMISES LIABILITY CASES & "ACTIVE NEGLIGENCE" PERSONAL INJURY CASES

Posted by Ben Sessions | Jul 28, 2016 | 0 Comments

In a recent ruling, the Georgia Court of Appeals highlighted the important distinction between active negligence claims and static (premises liabilityclaims for personal injuries.

ACTIVE NEGLIGENCE VS. CONDITIONS OF THE PREMISES – CLAIMS FOR PERSONAL INJURY IN GEORGIA

Some of the claims the Cards assert against the defendants pertain to the failure to warn of the condition of the premises while some pertain to acts of active negligence on the part of J&J's employees. For tort claims occurring on premises, there is a legal distinction

between causes of action where the alleged negligence arises from static or passive conditions (such as, pre-existing defects unattended on the premises) and causes of action thereon averring active negligence by act or omission. The record establishes that the incident on which this cause is grounded arises [, at least in part,] … from a claim of active negligence arising from [J&J's employees'] alleged acts and omissions occurring [while Card was on the premises].

Wade v. Mitchell, 206 Ga.App. 265, 266–267 (2) (b), 424 S.E.2d 810 (1992) (citations omitted). See also Lipham v. Federated Dept. Stores, 263 Ga. 865, 865–866, 440 S.E.2d 193 (1994) (distinguishing claims arising from the condition of the premises from claims arising from active negligence). The distinction is important because we focus on “different inquiries depending on whether the injury arises (a) from pre-existing conditions or (b) from active negligence, i.e., from the proprietor's acts or omissions occurring at the time the plaintiff was on the premises.” Brownlee v. Winn–Dixie Atlanta, 240 Ga.App. 368, 369–370, 523 S.E.2d 596 (1999) (citations omitted). For one thing, as discussed more fully below, the duties a defendant owes may be different, depending on whether a claim arises from the condition of the premises or from active negligence.

Card v. Dublin Constr. Co., No. A16A0596, 2016 WL 3648972, at *2 (Ga. Ct. App. July 7, 2016).

THINK STRATEGICALLY ABOUT THE THEORIES OF LIABILITY ALLEGED IN YOUR PERSONAL INJURY CASE.

Card illustrates and highlights the importance of how we frame claims for personal injuries. It would be relatively easy to overlook the possible failure to warn issues in these types of cases, but doing so could result in a fatal error for the injured party.

If you have a question regarding a premises liability claim or if you have been hurt on another person's property or business, contact the personal injury lawyers at The Sessions Law Firm today.

Blog Post Provided By:

The Sessions Law Firm, LLC

544 Mulberry St., Ste. 319
Macon, Georgia 31201

Phone: (478) 254-2665

About the Author

Ben Sessions

I work to provide exceptional service, attention, and results to each of my clients. Most of clients come to me because they are in a completely overwhelming situation. They need someone that will do more than address their legal problems.

Comments

There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment

Hiring A Lawyer

Hiring a lawyer is about more than getting a great result in your case. We understand that for many of our clients, the event that led them to call us causes them tremendous stress and anxiety. We will help you understand the process and how we can help. When you hire The Sessions Law Firm for your case, you will have a lawyer that is willing to take the time to help you and committed to delivering the best results possible.

Menu