We Play Hard. We Play Fair.
Getting hurt at a store, apartment complex, hotel, parking lot, private home, or other property does not automatically mean the property owner is legally responsible. The important questions are why the injury happened, who controlled the property or dangerous condition, and whether the person or business responsible acted reasonably under the circumstances.
At Restovich, Braun & Associates our premises liability attorneys represent people injured because of unsafe property conditions in Rochester, throughout southeastern Minnesota, and elsewhere in the state when appropriate. Our personal injury lawyers evaluate the facts carefully to determine whether a property owner, manager, tenant, contractor, or another party may bear legal responsibility.
Premises liability is a term used for personal injury claims involving unsafe conditions or other hazards connected to property. These cases can arise in many settings, including retail stores, apartment buildings, parking areas, hotels, restaurants, private residences, and other commercial or residential properties.
The legal standard is not identical in every premises case. Liability can depend on factors such as who possessed or controlled the area, what created the dangerous condition, whether reasonable care was used, whether the danger was foreseeable, and what the responsible party knew or reasonably should have known when that issue is relevant.
Some property-related injuries are also governed by different legal rules altogether. Dog-bite claims, for example, may involve Minnesota’s specific dog-injury statute rather than the same negligence analysis used in a typical slip-and-fall case.
One of the first questions in a premises liability case is who had responsibility for the area or condition that caused the injury.
That person is not always the property owner. Depending on the circumstances, responsibility may involve:
This can matter when several parties share responsibilities. A property owner may control some areas while a tenant or contractor is responsible for another. Determining who had authority over the condition, who was supposed to inspect or maintain it, and who had an opportunity to correct it can become an important part of the claim.
Premises liability can involve many different types of incidents. What matters is not simply the type of accident, but whether the facts support legal responsibility under the rules that apply.
Common examples include:
Other property-related cases may involve falling objects, unsafe walkways, defective doors, poorly maintained common areas, or other dangerous conditions. Different facts can produce different legal issues, which is why the specific circumstances matter more than the label attached to the accident.
In many negligence-based premises cases, an important question is whether the person responsible for the property knew or reasonably should have known about the dangerous condition and had an opportunity to address it.
Sometimes there is evidence that the property owner or manager had actual notice. For example, an employee may have reported a recurring leak, a tenant may have complained about a broken stair, or a business may have documented an earlier incident involving the same condition.
In other cases, the question is whether the hazard existed long enough that reasonable inspection or maintenance should have revealed it. That is sometimes described as constructive notice, meaning the responsible party may be treated as having notice because the condition should reasonably have been discovered.
Notice is not the controlling issue in every property-related injury claim, but when it matters, evidence showing how long the condition existed and what the responsible party did about it can become important.
Premises liability disputes often include arguments about the injured person’s own conduct. A property owner or insurer may contend that the hazard was visible, that the person should have avoided it, or that the injured person contributed to the accident in some other way.
Minnesota follows a modified comparative-fault system. An injured person’s recovery can be reduced by the percentage of fault assigned to that person. Recovery is generally barred if the injured person’s fault is not less than the fault of the person or persons from whom recovery is sought.
That does not mean an allegation of comparative fault defeats a claim automatically. The circumstances still need to be evaluated, including the nature of the hazard, lighting or visibility, what the injured person reasonably could have observed, and the conduct of the responsible party.
Premises liability cases are often highly fact-dependent. Evidence can help show what the dangerous condition was, how long it existed, who controlled the area, and whether reasonable steps were taken to address it.
Depending on the case, relevant evidence may include:
Some evidence can change quickly. Snow melts, spills are cleaned, damaged areas are repaired, and surveillance footage may not be retained indefinitely. A premises liability lawyer can evaluate what information is likely to matter and how it fits into the legal issues in the case.
Minnesota does not use one single statute of limitations for every premises liability claim. The applicable deadline can depend on what caused the injury and who is being sued.
Many ordinary negligence claims fall under a six-year limitations period. However, claims involving a defective and unsafe condition of an improvement to real property may be governed by a different statute that generally provides a two-year period after the claim accrues and also includes a longer statute of repose. That statute also contains distinctions involving negligent maintenance, operation, or inspection.
Other types of property-related claims may be governed by their own statutory rules. For that reason, the nature of the hazard and the identity of the potentially responsible party can affect not only liability but also the time available to bring a claim.
Restovich, Braun & Associates is a family-run Rochester law firm founded in 1992. Our attorneys are experienced litigators who understand that a serious injury can affect a client’s health, work, finances, family responsibilities, and long-term plans.
Our lawyers begin by identifying what caused the injury and who had responsibility for the property or condition. From there, we evaluate the applicable legal duty, available evidence, potential comparative-fault issues, insurance coverage, and the losses caused by the injury.
Because premises cases can involve several parties and overlapping legal questions, our law firm takes a collaborative approach when needed. We focus on the facts that matter to the claim and prepare the case for negotiation or litigation based on the circumstances rather than relying on a one-size-fits-all strategy.
If you or someone in your family was injured because of an unsafe condition on another person’s property, a lawyer can help determine whether the facts support a premises liability claim and who may be legally responsible.
To discuss your situation with one of our premises liability attorneys, contact Restovich, Braun & Associates online.
