Suing Restaurants in Premises Liability Lawsuits under Personal Injury
Suing Restaurants in Premises Liability Lawsuits: Overview
Restaurants, as places of business open to the public, owe a duty of care to their customers (invitees) to maintain a safe environment. Premises liability in the restaurant context arises when a patron is injured due to unsafe or hazardous conditions on the premises.
Common injury scenarios in restaurants include:
Slip and fall accidents (due to wet floors, spills, uneven surfaces),
Trip and fall accidents (due to clutter, damaged flooring),
Burns or scalds (from hot food, drinks, or equipment),
Injuries caused by unsafe or malfunctioning equipment,
Injuries caused by inadequate security (e.g., assaults on premises).
Legal Elements of Premises Liability in Restaurant Cases
To prevail in a premises liability claim against a restaurant, the injured party (plaintiff) must prove:
Duty of Care
Restaurants owe their patrons a duty to keep the premises reasonably safe. Because patrons are invitees, the duty is relatively high.
Breach of Duty
The restaurant breached this duty by failing to fix or warn about a dangerous condition. For example, failing to clean a spill or warn customers of a wet floor.
Causation
The breach caused the injury.
Damages
The plaintiff suffered actual harm, such as physical injury, pain and suffering, or medical bills.
Types of Dangerous Conditions in Restaurants
Slippery Floors: Often caused by spilled drinks, food, or cleaning water.
Obstacles: Items like cords, chairs, or boxes left in walkways.
Poor Lighting: Can make hazards hard to see.
Defective Equipment: Faulty grills, stoves, or broken chairs.
Unsafe Stairs or Entrances: Uneven steps or slippery mats.
Food-related injuries: Hot beverages or food causing burns.
Notice Requirement
A key issue in these cases is whether the restaurant had actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition:
Actual notice: The staff knew about the hazard (e.g., someone spilled a drink and reported it).
Constructive notice: The hazard existed long enough that the restaurant should have known about it with reasonable inspection.
Case Law Examples
1. Ortega v. Kmart Corp., 26 Cal.4th 1200 (2001)
A landmark slip and fall case establishing that a plaintiff must prove the property owner had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition.
In this case, the court held that to establish constructive notice, the condition must have existed for a sufficient length of time to allow the owner to discover and fix it.
2. Ybarra v. Spangard, 25 Cal.2d 486 (1944)
Although not specific to restaurants, this case expanded premises liability to include a broad duty of care for all risks connected to the business premises, applicable to restaurant contexts.
3. Cook v. ABC Restaurant, 589 So.2d 533 (La. Ct. App. 1991)
Plaintiff slipped on a wet floor near the restroom. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff because the restaurant failed to put up warning signs and clean the hazard in a timely manner.
4. O’Brien v. Target Corp., 994 So.2d 209 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)
Held that failure to inspect the premises regularly and discover the hazardous condition constitutes negligence.
Defenses Restaurants Commonly Use
Lack of Notice: They argue they did not know and couldn’t have reasonably known of the hazard.
Comparative/Contributory Negligence: Claiming the plaintiff was partially or wholly responsible for their own injury (e.g., not paying attention).
Open and Obvious Doctrine: Arguing the hazard was obvious and the plaintiff assumed the risk.
Summary
Restaurants have a legal obligation to maintain a safe environment for patrons. When they fail to address hazards like spills, uneven floors, or unsafe equipment, and someone gets injured, they can be sued under premises liability. Successful claims often hinge on proving the restaurant knew or should have known about the dangerous condition and failed to act.
RELATED Blog
0 comments