Search for: "Rowland v. Christian"
Results 1 - 20
of 32
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Feb 2014, 12:09 pm
Today, I discuss the seminal California Supreme Court premises liability case of Rowland v. [read post]
17 Jan 2018, 1:25 pm
” (Rowland v. [read post]
8 Jun 2017, 9:41 am
Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 105, 112; see also Parsons v. [read post]
11 Mar 2024, 8:55 am
Christian and Dillon v. [read post]
28 May 2015, 8:03 am
(Rowland v. [read post]
14 Jun 2024, 4:21 pm
The court pointed to Rowland v. [read post]
1 Mar 2011, 10:00 am
The logic runs like this: Under Rowland v. [read post]
22 May 2012, 9:30 am
In the landmark case Rowland v. [read post]
16 Jul 2010, 8:17 am
(Rowland v. [read post]
20 May 2019, 10:00 pm
He would have been obligated to correct known hazardous conditions or warn you of them, but didn't have the duty to regularly inspect the property.However, in 1968, the California Supreme Court ruled in Rowland v Christian that a visitor’s status wouldn't establish the owner’s duty to him.So, your status as a licensee is only one factor that can be used to determine the homeowner’s duty of care to you. [read post]
11 Jan 2012, 6:00 am
Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108. [read post]
28 Feb 2011, 6:00 am
In Smith v. [read post]
5 Jun 2017, 12:15 pm
Turning to the Rowland v. [read post]
18 Jul 2010, 8:18 am
Rowland v. [read post]
18 Nov 2011, 5:51 pm
“Going to church doesn’t make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car. [read post]
7 May 2010, 8:19 am
See also Rowland v. [read post]
13 Feb 2009, 12:34 pm
(Rowland v. [read post]
6 Jul 2023, 4:15 pm
The Court looked at the Rowland factors — a multifactor test articulated in 1968’s Rowland v. [read post]
9 Jul 2010, 8:15 am
However, as discussed in the legal argument section infra, XYZ Market's policy that each employee has responsibility for detecting and correcting problems on the floor is consistent with the actual law (Rowland v. [read post]
25 Jun 2015, 10:59 am
” Rowland v. [read post]
