But what if you slip, trip or fall and get injured on the property? Can you hold the owner responsible for your medical expenses and other costs associated with your injury? If so, how?

A Property Owner’s Duty of Care

Under the law, property owners owe a duty to keep their premises reasonably safe for certain invitees and other members of the public. This means that, if they knew or should have known about a danger or hazard – such as spilled liquids on the floor, unsafe stair railings, large construction holes or unsafe areas – but failed to do anything about it, they could be liable if an injury occurred. This is referred to as premises liability.

New Mexico Negligence Laws

Unlike many other states, New Mexico applies the same rules to premises liability cases that they do to personal injury claims. New Mexico law uses the “pure comparative negligence” rule (sometimes called the “pure comparative fault” rule). This means that the court will compare the property owners fault to your fault (if any) in the incident when apportioning damages.

For example, after considering the evidence, the court finds you 20 percent at fault for your injuries and the property owner 80 percent at fault. If you are awarded $100,000, you would be able to recover $80,000 for your injuries.

Timeframes to File Suit

It’s also important to note that injured parties have a window of time that they can file suit against the property owner and recover compensation. This is known as the statute of limitations period. In New Mexico, you have three years to begin your lawsuit. If you fail to take action within that timeframe, you will likely be barred from recovering any damages.

The sooner you take action to pursue damages for your slip, trip or fall, the easier it will be for your attorney to gather evidence, interview witnesses and prepare your case.

A Property Owner’s Duty of Care

Whether it’s a business or a private home, property owners are legally obligated to provide “reasonably” safe premises. They must check for hazards and repair them in a timely manner once discovered in order to prevent injury to others. Such hazardous conditions include but are not limited to:

• Wet floors
• Trash or other debris that constitute a tripping hazard
• Damaged flooring
• Poor lighting
• Cracked or broken pavement and sidewalks
• Electrocution hazards
• Malfunctioning elevators or escalators

Fortunately, those who suffer injuries from any of the above may be entitled to receive compensation (economic and noneconomic damages) for their injuries under what’s known as premises liability.

Those involved, however, should take note of a few considerations as it relates to their injury:

Time Limitations to File a Lawsuit

Injured parties have three years to file a premises liability claim in the state of New Mexico. This is known as the statute of limitations period.

While that may seem like a lot of time, it’s advisable to contact an experienced personal injury attorney immediately who can discuss possible recourse options and initiate the process, as the clock starts running on the date of your accident.

Preserving Evidence

It’s crucial to also keep any photos or videos of the scene you or a loved one may have taken, perhaps with your smartphone. This also includes any medical information, doctor or hospital visits. Such evidence can help in your recovery for compensation that includes current and future medical costs, lost wages as well as pain and suffering.

Understanding Comparative Fault

In New Mexico, property owners often assert what’s known as a “comparative fault” defense. In other words, they often claim that injured plaintiffs are in full or part to blame for an accident and should be barred from recovering compensation.

Some arguments asserted may include but are not limited to the following:

• You were injured in an area where visitors are not allowed
• Your footwear or clothing was inappropriate or unsafe
• You weren’t paying attention to what you were doing, such as being on your phone

Case-In-Point

If you are, for example, found 25% responsible for the accident, and you were awarded $100,000, the damages you collect can be reduced by $25,000. If you are found mostly responsible, (75% to blame) the damage amount you recover could be reduced to $25,000.

The above are a few issues injured parties should consider when thinking about filing a lawsuit against a property owner. However, the law is complex. Speaking to an attorney with a background in premises liability lawsuits can help address questions, recourse options and compensation as they relate to your individual circumstances.

What Is an Attractive Nuisance?

An attractive nuisance is something on your premises that seems enticing to small children, and that could lead to a serious injury. For example, if you have a swimming pool, a large pile of dirt, horses or a water fountain, you can expect that passing children will likely attempt to play with these things.

Under our legal system, small children are typically immune from trespassing. In other words, even if they encroach upon your property uninvited to play with the attractive nuisance, and they are hurt by it, you cannot use their trespass as a defense to a possible lawsuit like you usually could against an adult.

Instead, the law expects property owners to take into account the likelihood of trespassing children and take steps to keep them safe regardless.

What You Can Do About It

The doctrine of attractive nuisance provides courts with several factors to consider when deciding whether the premises owner is responsible for the injury of the child. For example, the court will take into consideration the child’s age and ability to comprehend the danger.

Importantly, the court will also take into account your efforts to prevent the harm as they decide whether you exercised reasonable care. If they determine that you did everything that was feasible to deter children from accessing the dangerous condition, and they do so anyway, then you may not be liable.

Examples of measures of reasonable care that you could take include physical barriers such as fences, warning signs, cameras, lights and other safety measures. If you see a child on your property and take steps to warn them of the danger and lead them away from it to safety, that can go a long way in proving to the court that you were aware of the danger and tried to mitigate it.

A negligence lawsuit can be devastating to any business or home owner. Make sure you are aware of possible dangers to children on your property and take steps to make them as safe as possible for your sake, and for the sake of the children.

In a recent case, one of the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of all claims asserted against it. Among the arguments made by the defendant was that the plaintiff had not presented necessary expert testimony. The court denied the defendant’s summary judgment. After holding a hearing, the court was satisfied that the plaintiff had demonstrated, under the res ipsa loquitor principle, a triable issue of fact concerning whether the retailer had breached the duty of care it owed to the plaintiff.

Allegedly a person was injured by automatic doors when he went shopping at a store operated by one of America’s largest retailers. The person was using a crutch for balance when he went to the store. The crutch was hit by the door, ostensibly because an interior sensor on the door malfunctioned. The defendant retailer did not accept responsibility for the accident and the injured person sued. The defendant retailer moved for summary judgment. Having come forward with its own expert the retailer faulted the plaintiff for not coming forward with an expert.

The court’s analysis opened with identifying the case as a premises liability case, and explaining that the law imposed on the retailer defendant a duty of care because the plaintiff was an invitee. The retailer’s duty included, according to the court, keeping automatic doors safe for use by the plaintiff and other invitees. The court rejected the argument that an expert was necessary at the summary judgment stage of the lawsuit. The court reasoned that the technicalities of how the automatic door functioned were not at issue. Rather, the issue was whether the defendant had negligently failed to keep the doors safe, which could be based on common knowledge.

The court looked to cases in other jurisdictions concerning malfunction of automatic doors, and cited them for the conclusion that “because automatic doors generally do not malfunction in the absence of negligence, and because this fact is within the layperson’s common knowledge, an automatic door malfunction gives rise to an inference of negligence under res ipsa loquitor.” The court also considered evidence presented by the defendant that the automatic doors’ interior sensor was adjusted 4 days after the plaintiff was injured. The court noted that, while it would not normally admit evidence of repairs to prove negligence, the defendant had not objected to consideration of the repairs. The court also rejected the defendant’s argument that the plaintiff should be faulted for not pleading res ipsa loquitor in his complaint or raising related arguments before the hearing. The reasoning was that res ipsa loquitor is not a cause of action separate and apart from a cause of action for negligence. It is better understood as one of the ways one can go about proving negligence. Based on the court’s review of the facts and the law, the defendant’s summary judgment motion was denied, allowing the plaintiff to move forward with prosecuting his case.

If you or a loved one has been injured in an accident, there may be grounds for a financial recovery. Sometimes multiple parties can be responsible for payment of damages resulting from an accident. A damages award can assist people who are injured and their families with the medical costs, lost wages, and pain and suffering caused by the accident. To understand more about a premises liability case and how it can be pursued in a manner that maximizes your recovery, call New Mexico personal injury lawyer Matthew Vance at the Law Office of Matthew Vance, P.C. We provide a free consultation and can be reached at (505) 242-6267 or online.

The plaintiff alleged that he was severely injured by a May 1, 2014 shooting and carjacking in the parking lot of a national drug store chain. The evidence before the court showed that, prior to the plaintiff being severely injured, in the period between April 17, 2011 and May 1, 2014, the Albuquerque Police Department had responded to 298 police calls at the defendants’ Albuquerque location in which the plaintiff was injured. Police reports reflected break-ins into and theft of automobiles on the defendants’ premises in which the plaintiff had been injured, as well as aggravated assaults and robberies on the premises.

The plaintiff alerted the court to the defendants’ policies and practices, which included not requiring employees to report intentional acts of third party violence in the exterior premises to other employees, and not having security guards or warning signs posted in the parking lot. The plaintiff also explained to the court that on the night of the incident that injured him, the defendants’ exterior surveillance camera did not capture the parking lot where the incident occurred and that the defendants had not, for several years preceding the incident, kept any reports, logs or data compilations of criminal activity or suspected criminal activity.

Based on the proof presented with his summary judgment motion, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability, recognizing that only a jury could compare the liability of the defendants to that of the shooter. The defendants opposed summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiff had not established his claim of negligence in a manner that warranted entry of summary judgment on liability in the plaintiff’s favor.

The court looked to the generally accepted standard in New Mexico and other jurisdictions for establishing negligence. The standard entails a showing of (1) a duty owed by a defendant to a plaintiff; (2) breach of that duty, which is typically based on a standard of reasonable care; (3) causation between the breached duty and a plaintiff’s damages, and (4) damages. The court observed that, although the breach of duty and causation elements are normally for a jury to decide, a court may still decide whether a defendant did or did not breach the duty of care as a matter of law or that the alleged breach of duty did not legally cause the damages sought in the case. The court added that, in such situations, the court must conclude that no reasonable jury could decide the breach or causation issues except one way.

The court determined that it could not determine as a matter of law that no reasonable jury could decide the breach of duty only one way. Although the court concluded that no reasonable jury could find the defendants did not foresee that the parking lot, especially at night, constituted a zone of risk posing a general threat of harm to others, including the plaintiff, the court reasoned that a jury would then have to decide exactly what risk of danger the defendants could foresee to determine the care or “additional” precautions the defendants should have provided. The court also concluded that the plaintiff had not met his burden on summary judgment of arguing proximate causation. While the court ruled against the plaintiff under standards based on the court’s interpretation of the law that are very difficult, if not indeed impossible to satisfy for purposes of achieving summary judgment, the court’s ruling does not preclude the plaintiff from preparing his premises liability case for presentation to a jury.

The results of negligence can be terrifying, and lead to severe personal injuries or loss of life. If you or your loved one was injured due to the negligence of a third party, there may be grounds for an award of monetary damages. An award of damages can help people who are injured and their families with losses, including medical costs, lost wages, and pain and suffering. To understand more about your case, call New Mexico premises liability lawyer Matthew Vance at the Law Office of Matthew Vance, P.C. We provide a free consultation and can be reached at (505) 242-6267 or online.