At one of our local supemarkets there is a narrow, two-lane road between the parking area and the entrance to the store.
As I was going across it a car came through going about 20 mph. I could see that the driver didn’t intend to stop or even slow down but veered to the right so as to be able to maintain speed and still miss me. By the way, I stopped as soon as I saw this maniac turn into the road.
This reminded me that I had mentioned to one of the store managers some time ago that someone was going to get hit there and they needed some speed bumps to slow people down. His answer was a curt, “We don’t own the property.”
I’m going to talk to the main manager about this again tomorrow because it seems to me to be a hazard that is easily corrected.
Anyway, it seems to me that if someone, particularly a small child, is hit by a car in that road it isn’t going to make one damned bit of difference who actually owns the property. It is the store’s place of business and they can be liable for accidents that happen there. I guess the question is, is failure to take reasonable precautions to avoid accidents negligence?
I am not a lawyer and won’t tackle the liability questions, but what can he do? Threaten to move the store if the owner doesn’t put in speed bumps? :dubious: Now, maybe the liability is questionable, but if you put up speed bumps on my property without my permission makes you responsible for the damage you do to my property, be it in the form of a speed bump or what-have-you. Now I don’t know if I have any legal responsibility as the owner, but the way I see it using common sense (not legal sense), it’s your problem. If I don’t want speed bumps and you don’t want the liability, fine, don’t let public onto the property or move the store.
Assuming of course there aren’t any local laws about speed bumps in parking lots that require them in this situation.
If this is actually a “road”, it’s probably owned by the locqal city or state highway department, and the store owners are indeed not allowed to make changes to it.
If so, start with those government departments, or your local elected officials, to get some changes made.
It is a private road entirely on private property and merely runs in front of the store building to give access to the street from the parking lot. The city police do enforce the red no partking areas that are there to provide access for fire equipment in case of need.
I should add that I’m not looking for legal advise so that I can take action to force the store to put in speed bumps. I just want to know if I’m on firm ground in trying to convince the manager to go to his boss for action to correct a hazard that could kill someone and expose the store to heavy damages and possibly cost him his job.
I’m not a lawyer, but perhaps you should ask the supermarket manager who does own the property, then write a letter to them. (And it would not hurt to send a copy of that letter to your city’s planning department).
Hard to say. In my experience speed bumps just egg some people on and I’ve never owned a car that couldn’t take a speed bump at 15-20mph. In fact, I do it every day (safely). Does anybody have any cites as for efficacy of speed bumps at reducing actual deaths/injuries (not average speed)?
Very likely. If you can describe it in a sentence, you can get sued for it.
Well… firstly, if the store doesn’t actually own the road, and the accident doesn’t take place on the store’s property, then you’re not talking about occupier’s liability.
The question is, does the store owe any duty of care to the shopper when the shopper is not on the store’s property? I dunno. I can’t imagine how they would, unless you could somehow say that the store was negligent in not informing the shoppers about the dangers of the road? It’s unlikely that they could do anything more, as the road does not belong to them, and you can’t very well hold the store liable for something that the shopper willingly does, knowing of the risks.
If the store does not owe the shopper any duty of care when the shopper is not on the premises, then I don’t think it’s possible that they’re liable for anything.
Morally speaking, why are they at fault? It’s not their road, they can’t do anything to it. At most, perhaps they could put up signs, or maybe a crossing guard, and I think even that is stretching it.
If somebody got hurt there while after parking their car in the store’s lot and trying to enter the store, you can bet that a plaintiff’s attorney could make a case. Would she win? Who knows? (It would depend on other factors such as the lease agreement or whatever contracts are involved, and the precise ownership of the street, etc.)
It would also likely depend on whether the store has been put on notice–which you arguably have now done.
I would bet that the owner would be interested in knowing.
David, I want to make sure of the facts here. The road is a private road, leased as part of the overall store premises by the operator of the store from a third party, private landlord, and serves only the store?
With confirmation of the above, I can probably say something useful. If you know, though, it’d be helpful to know two more things. Who maintains the road (fixes potholes, plows snow if relevant, cleans debris, etc.)? Is the road the only access route to the store?
Tabby, if you don’t know what you’re talking about, please, please don’t post nonsense.
The road is a passageway in the parking lot which is separted from the rest of the lot by a concrete curb. Either the store or the property owner maintains it. If we ever had snow that needed shoveling the same people would remove it. It is an integral part of the parking lot and is merely a designated passageway within the lot, put there so cars can get in and out from the street at the side of the store which is on a corner. This is the layout.
There are no “Pedestrian crossing” signs or speed limits painted on the pavement or any other cautions of any kind on the roadway.
For many counties, this is available online for all properties. Possibly this one, too, but the OP hasn’t given us any information as to the actual location & address of the property.
The property is in California. I have no interest in the owner. I don’t want to get the authorities to lean on the owner or the renter. That’s not my purpose. All I am looking for is information as to the liability of a renter for injury that occurs on leased property.
At common law, there were three types of people when it came to visitors to property: trespassers, licensees, and invitees. Every owner or possessor of property had a duty to people who entered his property, but the extent of the duty varied with the type of visitor. As one might imagine, one’s duty to a trespasser was minimal (but not non-existent).
It’s all pretty arcane, but many modern courts have blurred the lines a bit. What remains, however, is the notion that an invitee is owed the highest duty of care, and a customer (or potential customer) of a store is an invitee.
Your question is whether the store has a duty to its invitees that extends to the road that adjoins the store, and across which most if not all customers must pass to reach the store. It appears the road also is the one customers use to reach the parking lot.
Hence, Random’s threshold question: who is responsible for the road? who controls it? who maintains it? Me, I’d ask the same questions about the parking lot, but I suspect that in California the answer is irrelevant.
In Southland Corp. v. Superior Court, 203 Cal. App. 3d 656 (1988), the plaintiff parked in a vacant lot adjacent to a 7-Eleven. The lot was neither owned by nor controlled by the store’s owner. After making his purchases, the plaintiff returned to his car, where he was assaulted. (Apropros of nothing, he described his assailants as three young men dressed like “a punk rock trio.” )
The plaintiff sued the store’s owner (Southland) and operator (Lee), and claimed that he and others always parked in the vacant lot, and he assumed that the lot was controlled by 7-Eleven. The court found also that the store’s manager would sometimes tell “loitering youth” to leave the vacant lot, and would call the police regarding the lot. The court held that whether the business proprietor, whether an owner or tenant, *appears to control * the property is a critical question of fact, and if the proprietor appears to invitees to control the property, he can be held responsible for the condition of that property.
Now, I’d distinguish this case by pointing out that it addresses a business’s responsibility for the criminal acts of third parties on land it controls/possesses, and you are asking about a business’s responsibility for the natural condition of land it controls/possesses. Then, I’d respond to myself that this isn’t really a critical distinction, because it rests upon the duty owed to an invitee and the invitee’s reasonable expectations when he goes to a business.
So, I am not your lawyer, this isn’t legal advice, etc., but I’d say from a legal perspective the store may have some difficulty if an accident occurs.
A fair amount of the law is based upon public policy, and from that perspective we need to ask ourselves who is in the better position to effect change on the property: the one who has a contractual relationship with the property’s owner and who can exert some level of influence, or a mere customer? As a lawmaker, I’d put that burden on the one who uses the property for a business purpose. Easy call.
While this may be an admirable argument from logic, it does not have a foundation in the law and ignores the public policy issues that are a significant part of the law. I’d second Random’s request that those who are merely guessing admit as much, so that no one is misled into believing that it is a factual response to a factual question in a forum in which people are supposed to give factual answers.
David, I’d also caution that my research isn’t thorough, and there may be additional facts we don’t know that would ultimately change the analysis. I hope this helps a bit, though.
I understand this. It looks to me like I am on fairly firm ground in telling him that if there is an accident in the roadway it ain’t going to make a damned bit of difference who actually owns the store, the roadway the parking lot or anything else. He and the store are in for trouble and he should check with the company’s legal department before he ignores the problem on the theory that “we don’t own the building.”
