PointofLaw.com
 Subscribe Subscribe   Find us on Twitter Follow POL on Twitter  
   
 
   

 

 

Greetings!



Thanks to Walter Olson and the Manhattan Institute for inviting me to guest-blog this week. The impetus for the invitation was the publication of my most recent law review article, Moving Target: Property Owners' Duty to Prevent Criminal Acts on the Premises, 28 Whittier L. Rev. 409 (2006). Premises liability started with the reasonably uncontroversial notion that if a landowner invites people onto his property, he should take reasonable precautions to protect them from harm. Most states back then (and still some today) established a three-tiered analysis that offered varying duties depending on the relationship between the landowner and the person who came on the property. But property owners, by definition, have assets and thus became an increasingly common target for litigation. This is particularly problematic when the actual cause of the harm is by a third-party who had no right at all to be on the property, namely, a criminal. Pacific Legal Foundation´┐Żs Free Enterprise Project is very concerned with the expansion of tort liability to property owners, particularly for criminal acts committed by third parties. I'll be discussing some of the highlights from my article over the next few days, as well as commenting on some pending cases. But if I may immodestly suggest, read the whole thing!

 

 


Rafael Mangual
Project Manager,
Legal Policy
rmangual@manhattan-institute.org

Katherine Lazarski
Manhattan Institute
klazarski@manhattan-institute.org

 

Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.