The same could be said for Halloween, when there is a likelihood that trick-or-treaters will be visiting the property, uninvited and unannounced but expected nonetheless.
so, our local gov is setting up people to be sued? You know, the "if you do not wish to participate in trick or treat, turn off your porch light" statement the make every year?
maybe they get a cut...
OH GOD, I just realized. They are creating legal actions so as to provide more judges with work!!!!!
A property owner can even be held liable for injuries incurred by trespassers under some circumstances, especially if the trespassers are children.
sure, in some situations although I disagree with holding a landowner liable for any injury sustained by a trespasser other than one that was intentional on the part of the land owner.
to the children:. Attractive nuisances. Need I say more?
Cal Civil Code Section 1714 says: "Everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his property or person, except so far as the latter has, willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself."
and that is based on how ordinary care is defined.
as well, realizing there are steps and the visitor has not exercised ordinary care if he could not see the steps adequately and failed to locate and use a flashlight would be negligence on the part of the UPS driver or Joe's neighbor.
The best case out of California to review could be Rowland v Christian, 69 Cal 2d 108, 443 P.2d 561, Sup Ct Cal, 1968 (I believe it is still good law). It can be accessed at http://www.stanford.edu/group/psylawseminar/Rowland.htm
that is very different than not turning on a light. The faucet was actually defective, it was known to be defective by the defendant, and due to the defect, the plaintiff was injured. There is nothing defective with a light that is turned off.
but even with that great difference, the case speaks to the issue in general here:
Although the invitor owes the invitee a duty to exercise ordinary care to avoid injuring him (Oettinger v. Stewart, supra, 24 Cal.2d 133, 137; Hinds v. Wheadon, 19 Cal.2d 458, 460-461 [121 P.2d 724]), the general rule is that a trespasser and licensee or social guest are obliged to take the premises as they find them insofar as any alleged defective condition thereon may exist, and that the possessor of the land owes them only the duty of refraining from wanton or willful injury. (Palmquist v. Mercer, 43 Cal.2d 92, 102 [272 P.2d 26]; see Oettinger v. Stewart, supra, 24 Cal.2d 133, 137 et seq.) The ordinary justification for the general rule severely restricting the occupier's liability to social guests is based on the theory that the guest should not expect special precautions to be made on his account and that if the host does not inspect and maintain his property the guest should not expect this to be done on his account. (See 2 Harper and James, The Law of Torts, supra, p. 1477.)
UPS would be an invitee and as such, is due ordinary care to avoid injuring him (do you take the statement of: exercise ordinary care to avoid injuring him, to be different than: preventing him from being injured? If taken literally, as long as one does not cause injury to the invitee, it would fulfill the duty imposed
)
so, we need a definition of: ordinary care
Here they speak of active negligence. In each of the citations, there was an obvious danger that the defendant was charged with failing to remedy or adequately warn of. :
large number of people in a pool could reasonably be seen to be a danger
grease on a floor
water on the floor of the bathroom
Do you see a properly constructed stair with a properly constructed handrail as an obvious danger? Would one be required to notify all visitors of the stairs, whether it be daylight or dark?
Thus in Hansen v. Richey, 237 Cal.App.2d 475, 481 [46 Cal.Rptr. 909], an action for wrongful death of a drowned youth, the court held that liability could be predicated not upon the maintenance of a dangerous swimming pool but upon negligence "in the active conduct of a party for a large number of youthful guests in the light of knowledge of the dangerous pool." fn. 1 In Howard v. Howard, 186 Cal.App.2d [69 Cal.2d 115] 622, 625 [9 Cal.Rptr. 311], where plaintiff was injured by slipping on spilled grease, active negligence was found on the ground that the defendant requested the plaintiff to enter the kitchen by a route which he knew would be dangerous and defective and that the defendant failed to warn her of the dangerous condition. (Cf. Anderson v. Anderson, 251 Cal.App.2d 409, 413 [59 Cal.Rptr. 342]; Herold v. P. H. Mathews Paint House, 39 Cal.App. 489, 493-494 [179 P. 414].) In Newman v. Fox West Coast Theatres, 86 Cal.App.2d 428, 431-433 [194 P.2d 706], the plaintiff suffered injuries when she slipped and fell on a dirty washroom floor, and active negligence was found on the ground that there was no water or foreign substances on the washroom floor when plaintiff entered the theater, that the manager of the theater was aware that a dangerous condition was created after plaintiff's entry, that the manager had time to clean up the condition after learning of it, and that he did not do so or warn plaintiff of the condition.
let me summarize this:
your argument is that if a person fails to provide either a motion activated light, dusk to dawn lighting, or 24/7 lighting of their stairs they are negligent. I'm just not buying it.
So, what happens if the UPS driver is blind? Do you have actually provide an escort for them to avoid them being injured on your stairs (since obviously turning on the light won't do no damn good)
Personal responsibility. That's the answer. If you can't see the steps, don't use them or get a flashlight. If you do anything else, you are taking the risk upon yourself. It's called; common sense.
