Liability for tripping hazards in parking lots?

Question

Who is liable if someone trips over a raised pavement marker in a commercial parking lot? The operator of the lot, the owner of the lot, the installer of the marker? All three? If the answer differs by state, I'm interested in CA, but would be interested in where to look to find state-specific info.

Answer 1

I handled a similar liability claim on behalf of a business for an injury on their premises.
The injured party sued the parking lot owner. Witnesses were the lot attendant, paving contractor, and the owner of the lot along with witnesses for the plaintiff/claimant.

You and your attorney must show that there was negligence on behalf of the owner. The injuries were caused on the premises and due to the negligence. Then the damages as a result of the injuries. You must show the legal height of curbing within the city, the curbing was clearly marked or not and whether other injuries had occurred on the premises before.
You will have a good argument if the curbing was damaged or not painted or if the height is above or even below code.

The owner of the lot will have premises liability coverage.
http://www.nacsonline.com/NR/exeres/0000615ekahlbkkqgboantrc/GenUseWithOneCallOut_Resource.asp?NRMODE=Published&NRORIGINALURL=%2fNACS%2fResource%2fStoreOperations%2fstore_genliability_ir%2ehtm&NRNODEGUID=%7b6886473E-5EE8-4893-A7CF-077C782155B4%7d&NRQUERYTERMINATOR=1&cookie%5Ftest=1

http://gbr.pepperdine.edu/041/liability.html

Legal Basis for Premises Liability
The principal California jury instruction[10] specifies that the owner/occupant/lessor of a property is under a duty to exercise ordinary care in the use, maintenance or management of such premises in order to avoid exposing people to an unreasonable risk of harm. This duty exists whether the risk of harm is caused by a natural condition or an artificial condition created on the premises. A failure to fulfill this duty to exercise care is considered negligence. If the harm that results is foreseeable by a reasonable person who should be aware -- actually or constructively -- of the risk, then the law imposes liability, and thus legal responsibility. In the absence of actual knowledge of a dangerous condition, the law may impose “constructive knowledge” on the owner or occupier by reason of a failure to adequately inspect the premises as required by the nature of the activity on the land.