Business owners do not breach their duty to invitees by failing to remedy a danger unless they had actual or constructive notice of that danger; and the affirmative act rule, rather than acting as an alternative to notice, allows an inference of notice when circumstantial evidence shows that the defendant knew or should have known of the dangerous condition because it was a foreseeably hazardous one that the defendant itself created.
August 27, 2012
Thank you for sharing!
Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
This premium content is locked for Connecticut Law Tribune subscribers only.
Subscribe now to enjoy unlimited access to Connecticut Law Tribune content,
5 free articles* across the ALM Network every 30 days,
Exclusive access to other free ALM publications
And exclusive discounts on ALM events and publications.
*May exclude premium content Already have an account? Sign In Now
Interested in customizing your subscription with Law.com All Access?
Contact our Sales Professionals at 1-855-808-4530 or send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org to learn more.
Pasternack Tilker Ziegler Walsh Stanton & Romano L.L.P.
551 5th Avenue
Presented by BigVoodoo
ALM Legal Publication Newsletters
Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.
As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters.
Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss.
Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.