CAUSATION IN A PREMISES LIABILITY CASE
Causation in a premises liability case is difficult to prove. If a duty of care is imposed, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving a substantial link or nexus between the breach or omission and the injury. Not only must the plaintiff prove that the defendant breached its duty, the plaintiff must also prove that the breach caused the injury. The defendant property owner can be found liable if the plaintiff can demonstrate that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care and that this failure was the “proximate cause” of the injury.
Causation is an important element that must satisfy in order for the plaintiff to prevail. Proximate cause means a cause, which in a natural and continuous sequence causes an event. This is a factor that is the producing cause, meaning did X cause Y? Also, in order to be the proximate cause of an event it must be foreseeable. So, if you have a cause in fact, plus foreseeability, then legal proximate causation is satisfied.
In order to prove causation, the plaintiff is put in a conundrum to testify that they directly observed what actually made them fall. This lends itself to the defense argument that if the plaintiff saw the danger they should have avoided it and therefore assumed the risk. The ideal facts for a plaintiff to testify as to what made them fall is to testify that after the fact of the fall they turned around and saw the condition. Most often, plaintiff’s attorney will rely on circumstantial evidence to prove that the dangerous condition is what caused the plaintiff to fall. Circumstantial evidence is evidence that proves a fact indirectly. There is no distinction between direct and indirect evidence, and the jury is free to believe or disbelieve any type of evidence.
Furthermore, the defendant’s conduct must be a substantial factor in causing the harm to the plaintiff. The defendant’s conduct must be a factor that a reasonable person would consider to have contributed to the harm. Substantial factor must be more than a remote or trivial factor. It does not have to be the only cause of the harm. It is important for the plaintiff’s attorney to convey to the jury that any factor which causes harm leads to legal responsibility. Unless, it is so remote or trivial, they should not consider it. The defendant’s conduct also is not a requirement to be the sole factor in causing the harm. Rather, there may be other factors that combined in causing the harm. But if defendant’s conduct also contributed to causing the harm then defendant may be found legally responsible.
Los Angeles Premises Liability Lawyer
If you have been injured in an accident or someone you know has been injured, contact The Sterling Firm for a free consultation with a premises liability lawyer. We can help! Book Your Consultation Now! Check out our Affordable General Counsel Packages!
24/7 SERVICE. CALL OR TEXT 310.498.2750
TOP RATED LAWYER
Justin Sterling, Esq. is a leading personal injury attorney and civil litigator. Mr. Sterling is the founder of The Sterling Firm, a top-rated law firm with its original headquarters in Los Angeles, California. The Sterling Firm has a client base that stretches not only across the nation but also around the globe. We offer experienced and driven legal counsel for your matter. We handle insurance claims and civil lawsuits, including those that arise from catastrophic and severe personal injury