The presence of a warning sign could save the property owner from the need to deal with a premises liability claim.
Legal implications of sign’s presence
It makes it harder for the victim of any accident to prove the existence of unintentional harm. It casts doubt on any claim of negligence, on the part of the property owner
Placement of the sign represents the completion of a concrete action. That would be viewed as the sort of action that could help to prevent an accident’s occurrence.
All property owners are expected to carry out acts of reasonable care, in an effort to ensure the safety of those that step onto the owned premises. The posting of a warning would qualify as an act of care. Its presence would weaken, if not negate, any claims of negligence from an injured visitor or guest.
Those that have seen the sign, and have chosen to step onto the property anyway, have assumed the consequences associated with a known risk. A property owner could use the assumption of risk as a defense against any charges from an injured visitor or guest.
How effective was the posted warning?
• Was it large enough to stand out, so that any visitors or guests could see it?
• Had it been posted in a prominent location?
• Was it easy to read the message that had been placed on the posted signal?
Signs that prove to be effective, as warnings of danger have the ability to decrease the chances that the property owner could be held liable for any injuries to visitors or guests.
An injury lawyer in Woodbridge knows that ineffective warning could not be used as an argument for compensation, if an intruder had failed to see or heed the warning. Intruders must deal with the consequences of their actions; regardless of how well any property owner had demonstrated reasonable care, or had undertaken some precautionary action.
Do all such warnings need to focus on keeping others off of the property?
No, a smart property owner might also want to warn those that could be walking by the dangerous location. For instance, the owner of an empty lot might want to warn other about the existence of bees in a hive that had been created in one of the tree stumps.
In the absence of such a warning, a bee might sting any of the passersby. Then that stung individual might decide to sue the property owner. Still, if he or she had been warned about the bees’ presence, then it would be hard to prove negligence on the part of the person that owned the weed-covered premises.
Most municipalities aim for the eventual elimination of any empty and unused lots.