Search for: "Rowland v. Christian" Results 1 - 20 of 29
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Feb 2014, 12:09 pm by Glotzer & Sweat
 Today, I discuss the seminal California Supreme Court premises liability case of Rowland v. [read post]
8 Jun 2017, 9:41 am by Abby Adams
Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 105, 112; see also Parsons 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]
9 Jul 2010, 8:15 am by Moseley Collins
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]
27 Oct 2016, 4:43 am by Edith Roberts
Briefly: At The Atlantic, Garrett Epps discusses Lynch v. [read post]
5 Dec 2016, 6:15 am by Joy Waltemath
Observing that this duty of care would include the use of asbestos in one’s business or on one’s premises, the court turned to factors established in Rowland v. [read post]