CHAMBLEE v. GRAYCO, INC Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

CHAMBLEE v. GRAYCO, INC - Case Study Example Rules Premise liability is concerned with the claims of one party (the tenant) against another party (the owner) on the ground of getting injured in the property. It has been noted that in such cases the injured person can claim against the owner or the controller or the occupier of the property as per the tort law. Consequently, the owner, the controller or the occupier of the property, whoever is responsible to maintain the property, will possess the same liability under the premise liability law. In this case, the law of Georgia will be taken into concern. According to the section 51-3-1 of the Georgia premise liability law, an owner or occupier or controller of any property is liable to perform the duty for keeping the premise safe and free from any sort of physical danger for the people who visit the place. However, this section of the law also states that the occupier or the owner of the property is not an insurer of the safety of the people visiting the property. Furthermore, the invitee or the visitor should also take some extra care so that he/she can avoid unreasonable injuries or harm as mentioned under section 51–11–7 of the premise liability law of Georgia. ... This resulted in serious injuries to the plaintiff, following which she sued the defendant (i.e. the landlord) on the ground that the premise was not safe and it was clearly a case of negligence. As per the plaintiff’s complaints, the owner of the property, i.e. Grayco had not paid adequate attention towards the duty of ensuring a safe premise for the tenants of visitors of the property. On presenting the case to the court, the evidences revealed that Chamblee was entirely responsible for the change in route and also for her damages. Hence, the court’s decision affirmed that Chamblee had not been responsible enough to avoid the accident. The normal route that she uses to take every day was safe enough. Therefore, the responsibility of the landlord is justified by this aspect. Further evidences suggest that Chamblee took that route owing to certain personal reasons which was irrelevant for the case. According to section 51–11–7 of premise law of Georgia, in vitees or tenants will be entirely responsible for any sort of injury caused due to their conduct under the similar circumstances as witnessed in the case of Chamblee v. Grayco, Inc. Furthermore, the law also suggests that invitee(s) will need to be careful about their own well being when entering a property. Contextually, the responsibility of the resident(s) or the owner(s) in maintaining a safe pathway is confined to the regular entrance and exit points. Apparently, this aspect does not support Chamblee in this case. A similar scenario can be illustrated with reference to the case of Bartlett v. Mcdonough Bedding Company. Furthermore, analysis of evidences depicted that the