Hildebrand McLeod & Nelson LLP - Hildebrand McLeod & Nelson LLP
Representing Plaintiffs Since 1926

Call To Speak With An Attorney

Important COVID19 Update: We know this is a stressful time for many, so we want to reassure you HMN is taking every measure to ensure the welfare of our staff and the continuity of our service to our clients. HMN continues to work to ensure that our valued staff, clients and families are following all recommendations provided by our local, state and national leadership. We are actively communicating with the courts to reschedule any proceedings and will continue to inform our clients of those developments. HMN remains available at any time via phone calls, emails and video chat. We are here for you no matter what unexpected life changes occur and that remains true today.

We also wish to express our utmost gratitude to the healthcare professionals working tirelessly to care for our community. Our thoughts are with all those impacted by the Coronavirus.

Image from an actual HMN case, reproduced with permission

What to know about physical assault and premises liability

| Sep 10, 2018 | Premises Liability |

Not all forms of premises liability involve slipping on a floor or hurting yourself on a flight of stairs. In some places of business, an employee might inflict harm upon or physically attack a customer. Aside from the employee’s own personal liability for the assault, there are cases where a California employer can be held liable for the assault as well, if not under the doctrine of premises liability, then under other theories of liability.

As the HRDIRECTOR website explains, sometimes if a worker gets into an altercation with a customer, the employer can be held liable under the legal doctrine of vicarious liability. This doctrine holds that employers are vicariously liable for their workers if they harm another person on account of their actions, whether deliberate or negligent. Vicarious liability may apply even if the employee violated the employer’s safety or other protocols in hurting the customer or patron.

However, applying vicarious liability depends, in part, on a concept called “course of employment.” If a worker inflicts harm upon a person while engaging in the regular role of the worker’s employment duties, then the harm is considered to have occurred during the worker’s course of employment. Part of a worker’s job may be, for instance, to interact with customers. If the worker turns violent while carrying out this duty, the employer might be held liable. The same logic applies, for example, if a worker injures another person while carelessly driving a forklift.

Sometimes a person may be physically assaulted by another person who is not directly connected to the premises, but the owner of the property might still be liable under California premises liability law. According to Findlaw, if someone is attacked on a property such as a convenience store, a shopping mall, a motel or a university, the victim might be able to obtain compensation for the harm suffered from the property owner if the owner, for example, did not provide proper measures in protecting people from such attacks. A lack of security guards, for instance, might serve as grounds for a negligence claim.

If you have suffered an injury while on someone else’s premises you should promptly consult with an attorney for a thorough analysis of the applicable law.