Dangers Where a Property Owner Has Exclusive Control

The Court explained that the store had exclusive control over the break room where the spill occurred and the bucket containing the cleaning solution. As a result, it was reasonable to infer that the store or its employees created the spill (the dangerous condition) and therefore had constructive notice of the condition. That means the store should have known about the condition. Getchell v. Rogers Jewelry. Similar logic was utilized in a case involving a railroad conductor injured when he stepped from a moving freight train into an accumulation of debris in a narrow space between the train and a building. The building had exclusive control and management of the place where the accident occurred. The Court explained that it was reasonable to infer that the building created the dangerous condition. Often, slip and fall or trip and fall accidents can result in serious injuries such as knee injuries (like meniscal and ACL tears) and arm, wrist and elbow fractures. So, it is no surprise when slip and fall accidents result in surgeries to repair those injuries.

Dangers Where a Property Owner Has Exclusive Control2012-02-20T00:36:12+00:00

Defective Parts Or Defective Products

Who is responsible when someone is injured because of a dangerous product? Under California law, a company that manufactures or designs a dangerous product is responsible for the resulting injuries. The next question that arises is whether a company that produces a component part incorporated into the dangerous product is also legally responsible for those injuries. The manufacturer of a component part contained in a dangerous product may also be held responsible for the injuries. For example, the manufacturer of an airbag incorporated into a car may be responsible for injuries caused by the failure of the airbag. And, a fan manufacturer can be held liable along with a car manufacturer, such as Ford, when a fan breaks off an engine and injures someone. Gonzalez v. Autoliv ASP, Inc. (2007) 154 Cal.App. 4th 780; Springmeyer v. Ford Motor Co. (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1541.

Defective Parts Or Defective Products2012-02-07T21:59:25+00:00
Go to Top