I love this quote because it gives me hope that this question may be on the radar of many business owners. I don’t think it is because business owners have a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect invitees. Instead it is because business owners have a duty to protect invitees, but in an insubstantial way. It is not a duty to warn or protect invitees from harm.
The main reason business owners have a duty to protect invitees from harm is because they have a duty to act to protect their own interests. In other words, you have a duty to refrain from interfering with the business interests of your invitees. However, that is not what is meant by a “duty to protect invitees from harm.” The primary duty of a business owner is to act to protect the interests of their own business.
The problem is that businesses, by their very nature, are going to be doing business with people they don’t really know. In general, business owners have no right to interfere with the interests of their own potential customers, especially if they’re on the other side of the negotiating table. They have a duty to behave in a way that is consistent with their own interests, but that is not a duty to protect their customers from harm.
This is one of the most important points that the current thinking on this concept brings up, because it is the exact opposite of what the current thinking has always been. Before the internet, it was very, very difficult for someone to sue a business for failing to protect their customers’ interests. The internet has made this concept easier to take but it makes the concept even harder.
There’s a difference between the harm to the customer and the harm to the business. As a general rule, someone who has a legal right to sue a business for not protecting their customers’ interests from harm will do so. A business owner who fails to protect their customers are liable for the harm caused.
This is actually an incredibly important point. If you’re a business owner who has a legal duty to protect your customers interests from harm, you have a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect them. You can’t say, “Uh oh, I forgot to call this guy,” but unless you’re at fault, you’re going to have to defend your actions if they are found to be negligent.
In the case of the accident with the car accident the driver was wearing a seatbelt, but youre going to have to argue that they arent in the same class as the person who is injured. If youre like me, you cant sit around the office and wait for insurance to get paid for the damage or for you to get compensated.
In the case of the fire, you are going to have to say that you were in the right. There is no need to keep your mouth shut, as you can get sued for saying you didnt know that someone was smoking in the building. It’s also important to note that not everyone is a lawyer, and in certain states you can get sued for not having a lawyer.
I dont think that the law would require business owners to exercise reasonable care to protect invitees. I think its more about whether or not you care enough about your business to exercise reasonable care to protect your invitees. Its not an “if you can’t prove it, you have no duty” thing. In fact, you should probably be able to prove a claim, and this is a situation where a claim is needed.
In some states, businesses are given a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect invitees. This is a situation where a duty to exercise reasonable care is not needed. For example in my state, its called an invitee privilege. If you get inside your property and you don’t feel comfortable with a person on the property, you can refuse to allow them to come onto your property through you.