FREE CASE EVALUATION | 1-800-286-8097

Degree of Protection Provided By Warning Sign On Property

Personal injury lawyers in Lloydminster understand that when property owners post a warning sign on their property, then the person that has posted the sign gains some protection from liability charges. Still, there are limits to that protection.

Does the failure to post such a sign qualify as an example of negligence?

• What circumstances had pushed the property owner to post that warning?
• Did that posting of a sign appear to be a reasonable action, in light of the circumstances?

Would a reasonable person have chosen to call for placement of such a warning?

Usually, warnings become necessary when the safety issues associated with a particular location are not obvious. For instance, a storeowner would need to mark-off an area that was wet, if it had been washed recently, or if someone had spilled something in that same spot.

Similarly, the top of a doorway might carry a sign with this word: Duck. Someone that had chosen to approach that same doorway might not be able to tell that the doorway’s height did not match the height of most doorways.

Considerations made by court, if plaintiff has claimed a personal injury, while on a particular property.

Was there a warning sign on the property? If so, how large was that sign?

Was it large enough to be obvious to most men and women? Was the sign’s message unmistakable? In other words, could some illiterate person interpret its meaning?

What was the position of any posted warning? Was it too low to the ground, making its discovery less of a possibility? Had it been placed much too high, so that someone that did not look up at the right time could miss it?

If an insurance company were defending a property owner that had been charged with liability for a given plaintiff’s injuries, then the defense team might try to show that the plaintiff had been negligent. What facts could the defense team point to as proof of that negligence?

Could a witness testify to the fact that the plaintiff had made no effort to watch where he or she was going?

Had the plaintiff been ignoring the dangerous nature of the floor or terrain? For example, had someone that was invited to a pool party chosen to run across the cement area that surrounded the host’s pool?

Was the plaintiff’s injury the result of some foolish action? For instance, suppose that a couple on vacation had stopped by a fenced-in farmyard, in order to study some literature about the area through which that couple was driving. Then suppose that one of the couple’s daughters tried to pet a donkey, and had her finger bitten. Were the parents negligent, because they failed to watch their daughters more closely?

Thus, there are various scenarios were negligence is the reason for the accident and the premise owner cannot be held liable.