Articles Posted in Premises Liability

A statute of limitations refers to the time period in which a lawsuit must be filed. Knowing the relevant statute of limitations is essential, and it varies depending on the type of claim and where the claim is filed. The general statute of limitations for Washington, D.C. personal injury lawsuits is three years, as explained in D.C. Code § 12-301. However, some types of claims have shorter or longer statute of limitations. For example, the statute of limitations for wrongful death claims is two years. In comparison, Maryland has a three-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims and wrongful death claims.

Failing to file within the applicable statute of limitations will likely result in a dismissal of the claim, regardless of the merits of the claim. In some cases, the statute of limitations can be tolled. In other cases, the statute of limitations may be shortened based on an otherwise-agreed upon limitation. In a recent case before one state’s supreme court, the court considered whether a statute of limitations still applied despite a shortened limitation period agreed upon in a contract.

In that case, a tenant fell in the common area of her apartment complex. She later filed a claim against the apartment complex, alleging negligence and negligence per se, claiming that the complex failed to repair a crumbling curb, despite being aware of its condition. The complex claimed that the claim was barred by a limitations period that was included in her lease. The tenant filed the lawsuit exactly two years after her injury, and the claim normally would have been subject to a two-year statute of limitations. However, the woman’s lease contained a clause which stated that any legal claim against the complex was required to be filed within one year.

Bringing a claim against the federal government complicates what may seem like a simple Washington, D.C. (D.C.) personal injury case. If the federal government is a defendant in a D.C. personal injury case, it will almost always argue that it is protected from suit for claims brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).

The Federal Tort Claims Act allows individuals to file claims against the federal government and its agencies for certain wrongful conduct committed by federal officials. In an FTCA claim, a plaintiff must show that their injury was caused by a federal employee, that the employee was acting within the scope of his employment, that the employee acted wrongfully, and that the act caused the plaintiff’s damages.

Certain claims can be barred, depending on the nature of the act. If a claim is based on the act or failure to act in a discretionary function or duty, the claim is barred. Determining whether an act was a discretionary function or duty requires a determination first of whether the actions involved an element of judgment or choice. If so, the second determination is whether the judgment is one that the discretionary function was intended to protect, as a decision based on public policy considerations. It is only if both determinations are answered affirmatively that an act would fall under the discretionary function, and the government would be protected from suit. If the government claims that it is immune from suit under the FTCA, the government has to prove that an exception applies

When someone is injured as a result of another person’s negligence, Washington D.C. law allows the victim to seek monetary compensation from the party responsible for their injuries. The victim may file a negligence action, and if successful they may recover for lost wages, past and future medical bills, and even for the pain and suffering they suffered as a result of their injury. While this may sound like a simple process, the requirements for successfully bringing a negligence claim can at times be difficult to manage.

To be successful in a negligence claim, a plaintiff must show that the defendant had a duty of care towards the plaintiff, that the defendant breached that duty, that the breach was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury, and that the plaintiff suffered damages as a result. When filing a claim, it is crucial to include all of these elements in the complaint. Without one of the above elements, the case can be dismissed before it even begins, and the plaintiff will not recover any compensation for their injuries.

For instance, it is not enough to establish that the defendant had a duty of care toward the plaintiff, that they breached this duty, and that the plaintiff was injured. Missing in this example is the critical element of causation. To succeed, the plaintiff must show that their injuries were a direct result of the defendant’s breach of duty. This cannot be implied but must be explicitly stated.

In Washington D.C., injury victims may be able to recover for their damages if they can establish that their injuries were the result of another’s negligence. Lawsuits based on another’s negligence are appropriate when the accident victim can prove that the other party’s negligent action or inaction caused their injuries. Favorable outcomes are only possible when the victim successfully meets the following four elements of a Washington D.C personal injury action: duty, breach, causation, and damages. The first two elements require the victim to prove that the other party owed them a duty to act responsibly, and that they breached this duty. Victims often face challenges when they reach the causation element.

In Washington D.C., plaintiffs must prove that the defendant’s actions were either the cause-in-fact or proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. Cause-in-fact is when the injury would not have occurred but-for some action of the defendant. Whereas, proximate cause is a legal theory where the plaintiff argues that the defendant engaged in some action that set in motion the sequence of events that ultimately led to the plaintiff’s injury.

Proximate cause is broken down into two further elements; policy, and cause-in-fact. Washington, D.C specified these two distinctions in an attempt to limit a defendant’s responsibility. Most frequently, the defense occurs in instances where a defendant claims that the chain of events that led to the plaintiff’s injuries was unforeseeable or extraordinary.

Anyone who has been injured or lost a family member in a Washington, D.C. personal injury accident may be entitled to monetary compensation. However, before pursuing a claim for compensation it is important for accident victims to keep in mind the role that their own negligence could play in barring recovery, even if that role was a slight one.

In Washington, D.C. wrongful death and personal injury cases, the doctrine of contributory negligence bars recovery for the plaintiff, if the victim was at all at fault in causing the accident. States and localities have various laws surrounding contributory negligence, so cases may play out differently depending on where in the country the suit is brought. The Washington, D.C. law is one of the harshest for accident victims, so navigating a suit with a potential contributory negligence defense can be incredibly risky without the aid of an attorney.

A recent state appellate opinion serves as a good example of how a plaintiff’s own fault can affect their ability to recover. According to the court’s opinion, a sixteen-year-old boy was murdered after leaving his high school early and without permission. While the details of his departure and subsequent murder are largely unknown, the evidence establishes that he was leaving to engage in either a firearms deal or to buy marijuana. When he was found later, he was in an apartment complex known for illegal activity and with a large amount of money. His estate brought suit against his high school in a wrongful death action, claiming that the school was negligent in not monitoring and supervising the victim.

Washington, D.C. personal injury law imposes a duty on landowners to take certain precautions to ensure that their property is safe. Generally, when someone is hurt on another’s property due to the landowner’s failure to fulfill this duty, the injury victim can hold the landowner responsible for their injuries. However, if a recreational use statute applies, the landowner may be immune from liability. A recent case illustrates this concept.

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff and her boyfriend planned a camping trip at a state park. The two camped at a campground that was accessible from a parking lot. There were two paths to the campsite, a stone staircase and an Americans with Disabilities (ADA)-complaint handicapped ramp. After spending one night, the plaintiff tripped on some uneven pavement while climbing up the stone steps to the campground’s parking lot. The plaintiff filed a premises liability lawsuit against the state, as the operator of the park.

The state where the case arose has a recreational use statute, providing that any public entity is not liable for injuries occurring on “any unpaved road which provides access to fishing, hunting, camping, hiking, riding . . . water sports, recreational or scenic areas . . . [or] any trail used for the above purposes.” The state argued that the steps constituted a “trail” under the statute, and that the court should dismiss the plaintiff’s case. The trial court agreed, dismissing the plaintiff’s claim.

As a general matter, those who own or lease property owe a duty to those whom they allow onto their property. If a guest can establish that their injury was due to the property owner’s negligence, the injured party may be able to pursue a Washington, D.C. premises liability lawsuit.

Washington, D.C. premises liability rules apply to both owners of the property as well as those that lease the property. Technically, the laws apply to anyone or any company that exercises possession over the area where the injury occurred. Thus, some District of Columbia slip and fall claims require the court to take a detailed look at the lease between two parties to determine whether a party possesses the location.

In a recent federal appellate decision, the court was tasked with determining whether an insurance company that insured a church could be liable for the plaintiff’s injuries that occurred while at a bible camp at a resort. Ultimately, the court concluded that the insurance company was not on the hook for the plaintiff’s injuries because the lease between the church and the resort did not mention the attraction that caused the plaintiff’s injuries.

The basic principles of Washington, D.C. premises liability law provide that landowners may be liable for a visitor’s injuries in certain situations. Typically, a plaintiff must establish that the landowner was negligent in maintaining the property to successfully recover compensation. There are several common ways plaintiffs can prove that a landowner was negligent.

In a recent state appellate decision, a court discussed two claims brought by a plaintiff who was injured while walking on the sidewalk in the condominium complex where she lived. Evidently, the plaintiff lived in the complex for about ten years. For a good portion of that time, the sidewalk in one specific area was cracked. As time went on, the crack grew larger. One day, the plaintiff tripped and fell while walking over the broken sidewalk.

The plaintiff filed two claims against the condo complex; first, that the complex was negligent in allowing the crack to exist without fixing it. And second, that the complex was negligent for failing to warn residents about the presence of the crack. In a pre-trial motion for summary judgment, the court dismissed both of the plaintiff’s cases, finding that she knew about the crack and chose to traverse that specific area of the sidewalk nonetheless. The court held that the plaintiff’s decision to do so constituted an “assumption of the risk.”

When a dangerous condition of another’s property results in injury to a guest, the landowner may be liable for any injuries through a Washington, D.C. premises liability lawsuit. Often, these injuries occur at grocery stores, museums, parking lots, or on public property; however, it is not uncommon for this type of accident to occur while on the property of a friend or family member.

Just because an accident occurs on the property of a friend or family member does not mean that the injured party is without recourse. Indeed, this is the reason why homeowners carry insurance on their property. However, an accident victim still must be able to establish the elements of a premises liability lawsuit in order to recover for their injuries. This generally requires the plaintiff to show that the defendant was negligent in the maintenance of their property. A recent state appellate decision serves as an example of the type of evidence that must be presented in order for an injury victim to succeed.

As the court explained the facts, the plaintiff slipped and fell on an extension cord that was running down a set of outdoor steps while attending a party at the defendant’s home. The defendant was not home at the time, and was not the host of the party. Apparently, the defendant had allowed for another friend to host the party at his home.

By some estimates, the District of Columbia gets nearly 19 million tourists per year. By and large, these visitors stay at hotels and homestays across the Maryland, Virginia, and D.C. region. Occasionally, a hotel or homeowner fails to take the necessary precautions to make the property safe for visitors, increasing the chance of an accident. When an overnight guest is injured due to the negligence of a hotel or homeowner, the property owner may be held liable through a Washington, D.C premises liability lawsuit.

It is important to keep in mind that many issues can come up in a Washington, D.C. premises liability case. A recent state appellate opinion illustrates a common issue that comes up in hotel slip-and-fall cases. Specifically, the case deals with whether the plaintiff’s evidence was sufficient to establish that the hazard he claimed caused his fall presented an “unreasonable risk” of harm.

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was in town for a sporting event and stayed at the defendant hotel with a friend. While the plaintiff was taking a shower, he slipped and fell, hitting his head. The plaintiff briefly lost consciousness. The plaintiff took pictures of the tub after his fall, and two days later his wife reported the incident to the hotel.

Contact Information