According to the Occupiers’ Liability Act, both owners and occupiers of property have a duty of care towards those that make a legal entrance onto those owned or occupied premises. In other words, an occupier can be held liable for any injury caused by an accident that took place on the occupied premises.
The legal system has a broad definition for premises.
As most members of the public recognize, premises have been defined as any land or structure. Yet the fact that land remains stationary does not mean that a given structure must exhibit the same feature. It can be moving over land or water; it could even be flying through the air.
In other words, if the owner of a private plane took off from the airport in Ontario and one of the passengers got injured as the same craft passed through an area of turbulence, that passenger could sue the owner of the plane. Still, the law has placed limits on the ability of any person to go after the owner or occupier of a property.
There are times when the owner or occupier of a given premise cannot not be held liable for the injury to someone on that same land, or in that same structure. Someone who has made an illegal entrance onto a property or into a structure has no right to sue the owner or occupier, if he or she gets injured, while on that particular premise. According to injury lawyers in Trenton, that rule would apply to any trespasser, regardless of the trespasser’s intent, upon entering the location where he or she managed to get injured.
Yet not every person that enters a property legally should assume that he or she has the right to sue the owner or occupier for any injury acquired during that visit, regardless of how long or short it might be. Instead, a visitor has the duty to remain aware of his or her surroundings. In other words, a guest assumes the same level of risk as anyone that walks into an unfamiliar space.
The law recognizes that fact. Therefore, it has chosen to place a certain burden on anyone that steps into a location, even after being invited to that same spot. The law interprets that act of accepting an invitation as one that ought to give rise to an assumption of certain risks. An assumption of such risks should trigger an increase in a guest’s level of alertness.
Someone that remains alert, stays focused on checking for the existence of a potential hazard. Hence, a guest that had offered no evidence of possessing the expected level of awareness could not expect to win an award, after claiming to have become the victim of a personal injury.