Emerging Areas of Property Owner Responsibility in Regards to Premises Liability

Premises liability extends far beyond the typical slip and fall accidents that most people associate with property owner responsibility. Property owners face an expanding scope of legal obligations and situations where they can be held accountable for negligence.

What might have been considered adequate property maintenance or security measures a decade ago may now fall short of mandatory requirements. Becoming aware of these evolving premises liability statutes is essential for those who have suffered injuries on another’s property and seek fair compensation for their medical bills, lost wages, and suffering.

Let’s explore five emerging areas of premises liability where stronger protections are established for personal injury victims while imposing higher standards of care on property owners.

The Sharing Economy’s Challenges with Short-Term Rental Injuries

The rise of platforms like Airbnb and VRBO has created a new frontier in premises liability that blurs the line between personal and commercial property use. Unlike hotels with dedicated maintenance staff and standardized safety protocols, short-term rental hosts often lack the resources and expertise to identify and address potential hazards. When harmed at a short-term rental, injured parties may have multiple avenues for compensation, potentially including claims against both the individual host and the rental platform itself.

Common short-term rentals injuries include:

• Swimming pool accidents due to inadequate safety barriers or warnings
• Falls from unstable decks, staircases, or balconies that aren’t regularly inspected
• Burns or injuries from faulty electrical systems and fire hazards without proper detection equipment
• Security breaches from improperly managed access methods

Courts increasingly hold short-term rental owners to a standard closer to commercial properties than residential ones. You may be entitled to compensation for a premises liability claim if your short-term rental host fails to:

• Conduct regular professional safety inspections
• Document and disclose all known hazards to guests
• Maintain proper insurance coverage specifically for short-term rental activity
• Implement property management systems for consistent maintenance and cleaning
• Keep detailed records of all guest communications and property conditions.

Inadequate Security and the Foreseeability Standard

Inadequate security claims arise when property owners fail to implement reasonable security measures to protect against foreseeable criminal activity, resulting in injury to tenants, customers, or visitors.

Property owners have a duty to protect against foreseeable criminal activity when:

• Prior similar incidents occurred on the property
• Crime statistics showed known dangers in the area
• Security complaints went unaddressed
• Industry security standards were ignored
• Security features were advertised but not provided

Victims of criminal acts on someone else’s property now have expanded legal options as courts increasingly recognize property owner responsibility for foreseeable criminal activity.

Third-party criminal acts include:

• Robberies in poorly lit parking lots with histories of similar incidents
• Assaults in buildings where security features were non-functional
• Hotel attacks where staff provided room keys without proper identification
• Injuries at businesses that failed to increase security despite patterns of crime

The concept of “proximate cause” often becomes the central battleground in these cases as victims must connect security failures directly to the opportunity for crime to show how different security decisions would have prevented the harm.

The psychological impact of these injuries often extends beyond physical harm, with victims developing anxiety or PTSD that experienced attorneys document through expert testimony, obtaining crucial evidence like internal security reports that property owners rarely volunteer.

Hidden Dangers of Environmental Hazards and Owner Liability

Environmental hazards represent a significant but often overlooked area of premises liability, particularly when property owners have failed to test for, disclose, or remediate dangerous conditions. These cases differ from premises liability cases where injuries are immediately apparent because environmental hazard cases often involve exposure over time with delayed symptoms, making causation and documentation particularly important.

Common environmental hazards in premises liability claims include:

• Toxic mold growth causing respiratory conditions
• Lead paint exposure, especially harmful to children
• Asbestos fibers released during improper renovations
• Contaminated water systems with bacteria or chemicals
• Radon gas accumulation in poorly ventilated spaces

Knowledgeable attorneys work with environmental hazards experts and medical specialists who can scientifically link specific exposures to health conditions that might otherwise be dismissed as unrelated.

The Eroding “Open and Obvious” Defense

The “open and obvious” premises liability defense has traditionally shielded property owners from liability when hazards are clearly visible, based on the reasoning that individuals should notice and avoid apparent dangers. However, courts are increasingly limiting this once-powerful defense, creating important opportunities for injury victims.

Skilled premises liability attorneys now successfully overcome this defense by demonstrating:

• The “distraction exception” – when property features like displays, signage, or activities divert attention from the hazard
• The “deliberate encounter exception” – when economic necessity or lack of alternatives forces someone to encounter a known risk
• The “foreseeable use” exception” – when the property owner should anticipate that the hazard will cause harm despite being visible

A specialized lawyer approaches these cases by gathering evidence that might otherwise be overlooked  such as security footage showing distractions, testimonials from other visitors who encountered similar difficulties, or evidence that the property owner created the very condition that diverted attention from the hazard.

This defense often fails when attorneys successfully argue that the property owner still had a duty of care despite the hazard’s visibility. Rather than simply accepting a property owner’s claim that “anyone could have seen it,” attorneys conduct thorough investigations, consulting with human factors experts who can explain how environmental conditions, lighting, distractions, and normal human behavior patterns affect the perception of the hazard.

The law holds property owners to appropriate standards of care, recognizing that they have both the opportunity and responsibility to ensure safety. This shift in premises liability law recognizes that property owners create environments that fundamentally influence human behavior and attention. By presenting the full context of the environment and events that caused the injury, skilled attorneys demonstrate that property owners should be held accountable for hazards they create or maintain, regardless of how “obvious” these dangers might initially appear.