What Does Premises Mean in Law?
An analysis of the legal definition of premises reveals that the word itself does not have a concrete definition universally or across all areas of law. In various jurisdictions, premises are defined as what is listed in a petition on which a suit is brought. The essential characteristic is that of an enclosure. A house and a store are examples of premises and an empty lot may also be considered premises based on its intended use. Sometimes a jury is instructed to determine whether the premises existed during the wrong alleged to have been committed.
Most often, premises are defined as physical places. "Premises liability" is based on the status of the injured party on the property in question. For example, in a business setting, an invitee is owed a much higher duty to protect than a licensee . Unlike most other areas of law where premises is defined as actual physical property, real estate law uses premises to refer to property simply because it is often the practical application of real estate. Case law has defined premises as the set of facts on which the right to recover depends. Statutory cases vary widely in their definitions of premises based on the purpose of the statute. In cases involving equitable defense, premises is defined as the final settled resolution of the Court of Equity upon matters brought to it for determination. Based on these definitions, premises are an important component across many areas of the law. In addition, there are often situations where a case turns on a definition of premises to determine the presence or absence of elements necessary for recovery.
Premises in a Contract
In contract law, the term premises is often seen in lease agreements and refers to the physical property (land and/or building) to which the contract relates. Common premises clause found in contracts can include: warranties that the premises will be used for a specific purpose (it’s a warranty if the party making the warranty promises to do or to perform something, either by action or inaction); obligations to register, and/or pay for the registration of, a transfer of the premises; clauses which create rights of entry to the premises; with regard to leases, the right of the tenant to use the premises during the leasehold term; premises being the subject of any installment payment scheme; as well as sub-licensing frameworks whereby licensed rights (i.e. rights granted by the licensor to licensee) are granted/assigned to a third party from the licensee, to a sub-licensed party.
Making alterations to the premises presents possible problems with regard to a contract. An agreement may be needed between the licensor and licensee, or lessor and lessee, before any alteration to the premises is undertaken in order to prevent one party from adversely affecting the other. Generally, seeking permission in advance for any affiliate to alter the premises is a good idea.
Premises in the Context of Negligence
The concept of "premises" plays a significant role in a number of different liability cases. For instance, if an injury occurs on commercial property, the injured party may be able to hold the owner of the premises responsible under real property law for violations of the law enforcing safe conditions on that property. Also, in personal injury claims against owners of personal residences, tenants are sometimes liable for injuries occurring on their premises for failing to correct dangerous conditions of which they were aware or should have been aware.
In products liability cases, the design of the premises itself can factor into the negligence type liability of the property owner in keeping the premises reasonably safe. An example of this would be a case where an escalator has damaged goods in a retail store. If the owner of the property knew or should have known of the condition of the escalator and failed to repair it, it may be considered a design defect under products liability law.
Issues concerning premises are also very important in negligent security cases which involve premises liability issues. In cases of negligent security, the liability for the injury is not so much the failure to keep the property free from dangerous conditions, but rather the failure to secure the premises so as to avoid injuries resulting from criminal acts.
Common Usage of Premises and Landlording
Premises and the Landlord-Tenant Relationship
In addition to Cordelia’s definition of premises, one of the most common scenarios where we see premises referenced in landlord-tenant laws. Tenants are afforded rights and responsibilities concerning premises, but often those rights are in the context of what a landlord must or must not do concerning the premises. Landlords must turn over premises that are in fit condition for human habitation, and thereafter maintain those premises in a substantially similar condition until the lease has terminated. (Cal Civ 1941 . ) Premises must be occupied as promised and used contemporaneously for exactly the purpose for which the premises were leased. (Cal Civ 1942.) If premises are not as promised, not in habitable condition, or otherwise provided contrary to the lease, the tenant can demand the landlord repair the premises, or elect to deposit the rent into court until the premises are repaired. (Cal Civ 1942.4.) As between the landlord and tenant, close friends would not refer to the premises as the "tenancy." Instead, they would call up their respective attorneys or judges to resolve disputes over the tenancy and the premises.
Liability Issues Arising from Premises
Premises have a considerable impact on property law. In particular, the definition and status of premises will typically impact upon the ownership of property and access rights to property.
Property ownership
Business tenancies may be excluded from the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (1954 Act) if the parties contract out of the 1954 Act, which is why premises are so important in this context. This very much will be dependent on the particular facts and circumstances of how premises are used. Section 38 (2) of the 1954 Act defines premises. As such, including the extent of premises in this context is crucial. The term ‘premises’ is defined by s.336(1) the 1985 Act as meaning: "any land, building or structure or any part of a building or structure, including any garden or yard forming part of it or attached to or occupied with it." Land is defined as: "any land, land covered with water, any other corporeal hereditament and an easement, right or privilege in or over land."
Access rights
The extent of premises has implications for access rights. A successful claim for adverse possession of a registered land will depend on the actual occupation by the squatter of the land in dispute. Considering the above, the land in dispute would be subject to the definition of ‘premises’. It will be necessary for the squatter to demonstrate that he/she was in ‘exclusive possession’ of land; however, this may not be so if it is included within a wider area of land that the title holder retains control over. Failure to demonstrate ‘exclusive possession’ would result in the squatters claim being unsuccessful. Alternatively, if the disputed land was excluded from the title holders boundary but sort of it anyway, this will not be considered "exclusive possession" either and a successful claim for adverse possession might be possible, particularly if this land has been fenced off from other land excluded from their title. Notably, in the recent case of Pye v United Kingdom, after years of litigation and despite Council tax records evidencing the squatters occupation the European Court was satisfied that the land had been intentionally encroached upon and that they have been in peaceful possession for the requisite period.
Examples of Premises
One of the most widely referenced premises cases, as it pertains to slip and fall cases, is the case of Askin v. Super Fresh Food Markets, Inc., 212 Pa. Super. 530, 243 A.2d 505 (1968). In this case, the plaintiff claimed to have slipped and fallen in a Super Fresh food market, and that he had stepped into a puddle of wet red substance, which he alleged was juice from a fruit donut roll. Defendant argued that there was dried juice on the floor at the time of the accident, and that if the plaintiff was telling the truth about the nature of this substance, it would have to be a fresh substance, and therefore, the defendant would not have had sufficient time to clean the substance up once they became aware of it.
The court held: "The issue of precisely what substance plaintiff slipped upon was for the jury to determine from the conflicting testimony." So what does this tell us about the law of premises? It shows us that when a defendant’s lawyers argue an impossibility of the plaintiff’s specific fact situation, it’s critical for them to have a witness who can prove it; otherwise, it’s all just speculation . This case is also important because it shows us that the issue of whether the plaintiff was lying about the type of substance on the floor was not for the court to decide, but for the jury to decide after hearing all of the different witnesses testify.
Another critical case in Pennsylvania as it relates to the law of premises is Simpson v. Virginia Fortune Canning Company, Inc., Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (1946). In this case, the plaintiff broke a bone because she fell on the defective floor of a self-service section of the defendants’ store. The plaintiff brought suit against the owners of the store after sustaining the injury. The general manager of the store testified that he did not know that the floor was defective before the plaintiff fell. The court held, "[n]egligence is generally a question of fact for the jury; however, the evidence must show some default on the part of the defendant and a causal connection between such default and the injury." By saying "generally", the court was acknowledging that under certain circumstances, an injury is so obvious to be caused by a defect that the defendant has sufficient notice of the defect such that it may be found liable as a matter of law.