INFORMATION AND WHAT TO DO
Property owners in the state of Louisiana are responsible for keeping their property reasonably safe for other people. When accidents occur due to the negligence of the owner, injury victims and their families may be entitled to pursue premises liability claims. An experienced lawyer can help you determine who is negligent and who should be held liable for your injuries.
At Murphy Law Firm, LLC, in Baton Rouge, our attorneys have more than 28 years of combined experience representing people injured in slip-and-fall and other premises liability accidents. We work hard to recover the maximum compensation that our clients need for medical treatment, lost wages, pain and suffering, and other expenses. Make sure you are not taken advantage of by the insurance company. Read our Injury Accident Guide and learn more about what to do after an accident that leaves you or someone you love injured.
Our firm has handled a wide range of claims involving premises liability, including:
It is important to take action as soon as possible after a personal injury incident. Contact us today to schedule a free consultation, and learn what types of compensation you may be entitled to.
§2800.6. Burden of proof in claims against merchants
A. A merchant owes a duty to persons who use his premises to exercise reasonable care to keep his aisles, passageways, and floors in a reasonably safe condition. This duty includes a reasonable effort to keep the premises free of any hazardous conditions which reasonably might give rise to damage.
B. In a negligence claim brought against a merchant by a person lawfully on the merchant’s premises for damages as a result of an injury, death, or loss sustained because of a fall due to a condition existing in or on a merchant’s premises, the claimant shall have the burden of proving, in addition to all other elements of his cause of action, all of the following:
(1) The condition presented an unreasonable risk of harm to the claimant and that risk of harm was reasonably foreseeable.
(2) The merchant either created or had actual or constructive notice of the condition which caused the damage, prior to the occurrence.
(3) The merchant failed to exercise reasonable care. In determining reasonable care, the absence of a written or verbal uniform cleanup or safety procedure is insufficient, alone, to prove failure to exercise reasonable care.
(1) “Constructive notice” means the claimant has proven that the condition existed for such a period of time that it would have been discovered if the merchant had exercised reasonable care. The presence of an employee of the merchant in the vicinity in which the condition exists does not, alone, constitute constructive notice, unless it is shown that the employee knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, of the condition.
(2) “Merchant” means one whose business is to sell goods, foods, wares, or merchandise at a fixed place of business. For purposes of this Section, a merchant includes an innkeeper with respect to those areas or aspects of the premises which are similar to those of a merchant, including but not limited to shops, restaurants, and lobby areas of or within the hotel, motel, or inn.
D. Nothing herein shall affect any liability which a merchant may have under Civil Code Arts. 660, 667, 669, 2317, 2322, or 2695.
Acts 1990, No. 1025, §1, eff. Sept. 1, 1990; Acts 1996, 1st Ex. Sess., No. 8, §1, eff. May 1, 1996.
§2800. Limitation of liability for public bodies
A. A public entity is responsible under Civil Code Article 2317 for damages caused by the condition of buildings within its care and custody.
B. Where other constructions are placed upon state property by someone other than the state, and the right to keep the improvements on the property has expired, the state shall not be responsible for any damages caused thereby unless the state affirmatively takes control of and utilizes the improvement for the state’s benefit and use.
C. Except as provided for in Subsections A and B of this Section, no person shall have a cause of action based solely upon liability imposed under Civil Code Article 2317 against a public entity for damages caused by the condition of things within its care and custody unless the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the particular vice or defect which caused the damage prior to the occurrence, and the public entity has had a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect and has failed to do so.
D. Constructive notice shall mean the existence of facts which infer actual knowledge.
E. A public entity that responds to or makes an examination or inspection of any public site or area in response to reports or complaints of a defective condition on property of which the entity has no ownership or control and that takes steps to forewarn or alert the public of such defective condition, such as erecting barricades or warning devices in or adjacent to an area, does not thereby gain custody, control, or garde of the area or assume a duty to prevent personal injury, wrongful death, property damage, or other loss as to render the public entity liable unless it is shown that the entity failed to notify the public entity which does have care and custody of the property of the defect within a reasonable length of time.
F. A violation of the rules and regulations promulgated by a public entity is not negligence per se.
G.(1) “Public entity” means and includes the state and any of its branches, departments, offices, agencies, boards, commissions, instrumentalities, officers, officials, employees, and political subdivisions and the departments, offices, agencies, boards, commissions, instrumentalities, officers, officials, and employees of such political subdivisions. Public entity also includes housing authorities, as defined in R.S. 40:384(15), and their commissioners and other officers and employees and sewerage and water boards and their employees, servants, agents, or subcontractors.
(2) “Public site or area” means any publicly owned or common thing, or any privately owned property over which the public’s access is not prohibited, limited, or restricted in some manner including those areas of unrestricted access such as streets, sidewalks, parks, or public squares.
H. Terminated by Acts 2006, No. 545, §1, eff. Aug. 30, 2008.
Acts 1985, No. 454, §1, eff. July 12, 1985; Acts 1992, No. 581, §1; Acts 1995, No. 828, §1, Nov. 23, 1995; Acts 2003, No. 725, §1; Acts 2003, No. 1077, §1, eff. July 2, 2003; Acts 2006, No. 545, §1.
Client slipped in water at a Walmart. Client had previous health issues and was disabled prior to accident. Client suffered a back injury from this accident. Jury awarded the plaintiff $464,802.
*Results may vary*