Limitation Of Liability Act Defense In Houston: Legal Counsel For Maritime Clients

 Limitation Of Liability Act Defense In Houston: Legal Counsel For Maritime Clients - In Texas, businesses and property owners have a duty to keep customers and other visitors safe. When they fail to do so, they can be held liable for an injured victim's medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, and other damages. That said, navigating the claims process is difficult.

Property owners and insurance companies are aggressive. You must be prepared to anticipate the legal defenses they will raise. Here, our Brazoria County premises liability attorney highlights the three most common defenses in premises liability injury cases in Texas.

Limitation Of Liability Act Defense In Houston: Legal Counsel For Maritime Clients

To prove fault in a premises liability case, you must prove that the defendant (business or property owner) breached a duty of care. In Texas, property owners and occupants are responsible for taking proper safety precautions to ensure the well-being of their guests. That being said, employers and property owners do not owe a duty of care to evacuees. Under Texas Code of Civil Practice and Procedure Sec. 75.002, a business/property owner is generally "not liable for damages to a trespasser." The only exception is when the victim's injuries were caused by voluntary actions​​​​​​​​​​​​ and / or grossly negligent behavior.

Houston Medicare Fraud Defense Attorneys

With premises liability claims, Texas generally requires the defendant to have actual or constructive knowledge of the property hazard at issue. Put another way, a business or property owner in Houston is generally only liable for a security lapse on their premises if they knew or should have known. Real knowledge is enough to find this element. However, ignorance is not necessarily a valid excuse. A business or property owner can be held liable if they knew about a safety hazard. In many premises liability claims, defendants will argue that they neither knew nor could reasonably have known of the safety hazard.

Texas is a state of comparative negligence for premises liability claims, including for accidental and accidental incidents. In fact, comparative fault is a lot like a partial defense for a business or homeowner. They can reduce their liability by shifting some of the blame for the accident onto the injured victim. Under the rules of comparative fault, each party to an accident is responsible for their share of damages. If a business can hold you 30 percent responsible for your slip and fall—perhaps by claiming you were "passing unconscious" when you tripped—they can reduce their liability by 30 percent. Being partially covered by your accident will take money out of your pocket.

At Kolodny Law Firm, our Texas liability attorneys know how to get results. If you or a loved one has been damaged on someone else's property, we can help. Contact us today to set up a no-fee, no-obligation consultation. We provide foreclosure representation throughout Brazoria County, including in Lake Jackson, Pearland, Richwood, West Columbia, and Angleton.

Alan Kolodny is committed to representing injured clients in Texas and throughout the United States. Alan B.A. from Rice University and a J.D. from Southern Methodist University.

Hinshaw Insurance Law Tv

Premises liability law requires businesses and property owners to maintain their premises in a safe and secure condition for invited guests. In Texas, there are businesses

According to ABC 13, one person died and two others were seriously injured in a hit-and-run accident in Brazoria County.

A Railway Crossing has the potential to be very dangerous if proper safety precautions are not taken. Every year, more and more people participate in it

The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this website should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Maritime law states that the owner of a ship can be held liable for any loss or damage that occurs during the voyage. However, many boat owners try to avoid liability for accidents and deaths that occur on their boat under the Limitation of Liability Act. This allows the owner to limit liability in some cases if the vessel's poor condition leading to loss occurs without the owner's knowledge. Actions cover personal injury losses such as death and collisions, as well as cargo losses such as loss of property, goods, or merchandise.

Houston Dump Truck Accident Attorney

Injured mariners soon realize the importance that this act plays in determining the amount and availability of compensation available because the liability is based on the value of the vessel and the "then-waiting burden" after the time of loss. This may mean that an injured seafarer will not be fully covered in their injury claim. Therefore, the act is increasingly criticized for outmoding newer rules that make it easier to invest in offshore trade without fear of unlimited liability. Despite this, the employer still plays a dominant role in determining the amount of compensation a marine worker can receive.

At Arnold & Itkin, our marine injury attorneys can defend you against corporate attempts to deny liability. Call (888) 493-1629 or contact us online to learn how.

The Limitation of Liability Act was originally created to protect ship owners from financial ruin. The act was made during a historical period when the shipping and maritime industry was much more risky than it is today. As ships faced disasters such as unpredictable weather, pirates, attacks by foreign states, deadly diseases, and other serious dangers at sea, lawmakers feared that lawsuits by injured crews or upset merchants would disrupt the American shipping and shipping industry. .

The Limitation of Liability Act was created to mitigate the enormous risks shippers and shipowners face on every voyage. Under the Limitation of Liability Act, a shipowner will be able to limit his total financial liability to the value of his ship. If, say, a crew needs to load cargo during a storm to save itself, the merchant who owns that cargo will only be able to sue the shipowner up to the ship's total value. Remember that in 1851, a shipowner had no way of communicating with his ship or his captain; what happened in the sea was ultimately not the owner's fault. It protected shipping, made international trade more profitable and less risky, and ultimately helped America prosper and grow.

Texas Law Expands Liability For Sexual Harassment

However, in recent decades the law has been used by its authors in an absurd way: to protect large corporations from liability for their negligence. Look, in 1851, America's marine landscape didn't have the resources it has today. They had no weather forecasting equipment; we do. They had no satellite GPS; we do. remote communication devices that kept ship owners in constant contact with their ships; we do. With all these resources in place, the only disasters that happen at sea are those caused by gross negligence or poor safety practices by owners.

Because the Limitation of Liability Act still exists, however, companies with 21st century technology can avoid financial liability by using a law written more than 150 years ago for small boat owners.

In October 2015, the TOTE Maritime vessel El Faro ran straight into a storm, despite having a history of engine failure. As a result, the ship sank and all 33 crew members lost their lives. Recorded conversations between the captain and TOTE Maritime revealed that the captain wanted to take a slower route around the storm, but investigators questioned whether TOTE pressured the captain to take the faster and more dangerous route. Other records show that TOTE ships have a history of sudden power loss, and the

Gone, TOTE Maritime soon sued under the Limitation of Liability Act of 1851. Applying for protection under limited liability was basically their way of saying they weren't going to try to make things right with the spouse and children they left behind. balnedani It was also their way of forcing every grieving family member to bring their case to court

Houston Personal Injury Lawyer

While TOTE insisted that their boat was only worth a small amount (thus limiting each family's total potential compensation to a small amount), they filed an insurance claim for the boat with their insurer. It was the value they claimed in their insurance file

Of the value they claimed under the Limitation of Liability Act; originally, they hoped to profit from the destruction of their ship and the loss of 33 people. Everyone's life was more than their ship, but that didn't matter. That's what the Limitation of Liability Act of 1851 does today - it reduces a person's life to the value of a shipwreck.

In perhaps one of the worst uses of the Limitation of Liability Act, a company called Truth Aquatics sued its surviving crew and the families of 34 victims after a California dive boat fire killed dozens in September 2019.

Limitation of liability, limitation of liability act, legal disability under limitation act, limitation of liability example, limitation of liability insurance, act of limitation, limitation of liability clauses, limitation of liability meaning, limitation of liability cap, limitation of liability in contracts, limitation of liability clause in a contract, online copyright infringement liability limitation act