The person that has chosen to occupy a given property can be held liable for an injury to anyone that got harmed while on that same piece of property. That liability would not vanish, if the same occupier had resided on that specific property without the owner’s permission.

Who would be liable for an injury to someone that has chosen to enter an abandoned property?

The injured victim would need to learn the name of the last person to occupy that same site. In order to resolve the question of liability, the same victim would need to find out who had been granted permission to occupy that same spot, at some earlier date.

What happens if someone gets injured while in a public space?

In that case, the legal system would want information on the name(s) of anyone that had been given control of that same public area. In the eyes of the law, the controller would have the same status as an occupier.

Of course, it would take time for anyone to get the name of the person that had been controlling that spot, at the time of the injury. By the time that such information had come to light, the dangerous condition could have been corrected.

That hypothetical sequence of events should illustrate why it would be difficult to sue a government body that had control of a given area. The needed correction would be in place by the time that the victim had located and presented the required information.

Would an owner be liable for any injuries on property that possessed a dangerous feature?

Did that dangerous condition exist at the time when the owner rented the dangerous location? If it did, then did the owner provide the renter with a warning, as related to the known danger?

What are the responsibilities of an owner that has promised to take action, in order to fix a dangerous or broken section of an owned location?

The timeline for the offered promise and the timeline for any follow-up event would determine the answer to that question as per Injury Lawyer in Vaughan.

Did the injury-causing event take place before the owner had made good on his/her promise? If the answer were “yes,” then the owner would be responsible for that same injury.

A hazy area of the law

Suppose an apartment owner included payment for a parking space in the monthly rent. But suppose, too, that one renter does not use her parking space, even though she must pay the full rent. Who would be legally liable for an injury to someone that decided to try parking in that empty and unclaimed space? Would it be the renter or the owner?