Comparing Actual Knowledge with Constructive Knowledge in Property Accidents
When you enter into another party’s property, there is the expectation that it will be free from perils that could lead to injury accidents hurting you. If there are issues, property owners should address them and take the action necessary to resolve things to keep everyone on the premises safe. Though, this does not always happen. There are several different examples of people going into a business establishment, encountering a hazard, falling, and being injured. Meanwhile, regardless of if the property owner had direct knowledge of the problem or not, they may still be held accountable for the damages of the person who fell.
When it comes to showing negligence in a premise liability situation, knowledge has a big role. Determining what a property owner knew and when they knew it can be critical to being successful with your suit. This is because if a property owner has either actual knowledge or constructive knowledge of an issue, they may be held financially responsible for the losses a victim who falls on their property sustained.
In Las Vegas, the city is always bustling and busy as the most populated city in Nevada. Not only is the city home to more than 660,000 people, but it is also a desirable location for tourists. There were 3,639,200 tourists in Las Vegas in October of 2022 alone. Slip and fall incidents can happen with high frequency here. If you were injured in a hotel, casino, or another establishment in the city, then you may be entitled to financial compensation. The Las Vegas property accident attorney at the Aaron Law Group can help you file a claim.
What are Actual Knowledge and Constructive Knowledge?
When there is a hazard on a property, owners must identify the issue and take care of it in a reasonable amount of time. If a person is injured on a property due to a defect or issue that was not fixed, then they may have a legal case to make for compensation for the losses they suffered from the injury event. Showing negligence existed on the part of the property owner is essential.
A property owner that has actual knowledge is one who knows of the problem, while an owner that has constructive knowledge should have known of the problem. So, when filing a claim for compensation, proving that knowledge existed in some way is critical to winning one’s case.
A plaintiff that files a claim against a property who can show there was actual knowledge of an issue and the issue was not fixed, will have a better time at being successful with their claim than if they can’t. Though, when actual knowledge can not be established, it may be possible to prove constructive knowledge. Nevada courts recognize that if a hazard was left on the floor for a long time and the property owner should have known about it if they looked, then the property owner may be culpable if an injury accident happens. Even if it could be argued that a property owner could reasonably foresee a dangerous situation happening but didn’t take appropriate precautions, they still may be held liable.
Speak with a Las Vegas Premise Liability Attorney Today
If you were injured on a business establishment’s property, then filing a claim for compensation may be in your best interest. Call the Aaron Law Group today at (702) 550-1111 to learn more during a free consultation.