Please fill in the blank with words list in below

The next claim deals with our construction development site of our new commercial project in San Diego.A pit was dug and rebar installed to allow for the pouring of a concrete foundation.Typically, the pit is fenced off, but the night before the pour the construction supervisor followed the practice of not reinstalling the fence to save time in pouring the concrete.If the fence had to be taken down the morning of the pour sometimes the concrete will dry in the concrete trucks while the trucks wait.Unfortunately, several intruders entered the construction site during the night to steal copper for DD's storage. One of the persons fell into the pit and was impaled on the steel rods or rebar.The question raised is whether DD has liability to this person.Looking at the issue from a negligence perspective the question is whether we can defend the case because the injured person was a criminal (28). In many jurisdictions a person who has been injured on another's real property and brings a personal injury claim typically referred to as a (29) claim has to establish their lawful presence on the property either as one who has a contractual right to be there as a (30) or one who is legally on the property without a contractual right and is considered to be an (31).However, California does follow this approach and the (32) of the injured person is not determinative.Rather, the courts examine the reasonableness of our conduct and the condition of the property.If the property is found to have an (33) dangerous condition then DD will be liable to the injured person even though at the time of the injury they had no legal right to be on the property.

No doubt you will want to know what formula or written guidelines we can provide to the employees of DD regarding how to protect against liability for negligence.Unfortunately, there is no "magic" procedure, but we can insist that DD's employees be vigilant and diligent, and constantly assess risk.The assessment they should always be aware of is the (34) that any condition may cause an injury and the (35) if the injury occurs. If both of these factors are at a high level, then the preventative actions DD must follow are greater.However, DD can take solace in knowing that even in California, DD is not the (36) of anyone's safety.Rather DD's liability for a negligence claim requires the plaintiff to show that DD (37) to that person because it was (38) that DD's conduct would impact that person, and that DD (39) which as a proximate result (40) damages in the nature of (41).Unlike a claim for intentional tort, if as a result of DD's negligence the only injury is for (42) no recovery will be allowed.

Even though DD can be sued by the criminal because the injury occurred on DD's property, it does not mean that DD will necessarily be liable.DD might be able to assert defenses.If it can be shown that the plaintiff knew of the risk posed by the open foundation pit, and nevertheless decided to climb through it DD can assert the defense of (43).This defense differs for another common defense of (44) which requires DD to establish that the injury suffered by the plaintiff was, in part, caused by plaintiff's failure to exercise due care.If this later defense is applicable, it will not be a complete defense because California adopts a standard of (45).

The most unusual case we have is the one involving our Sacramento hotel.A person entered the hotel and for reasons not one can detect including all experts and governmental official the chandelier simply fell from the ceiling.Since no one knows why, and I thought that DD could escape liability because one of the elements necessary for a negligence claim is absent.Simply put, DD did nothing wrong.The chandelier was properly installed at the time, and was not meant to be touched, and was not touched.However, although the plaintiff would have an impossible task in establishing any breach of due care on the part of DD, the plaintiff does not have to under the doctrine of (46).Since this happened and could happen again, DD should be more vigilant in doing inspections.In particular, DD should confirm it is in compliance with all local and state ordinances and statutes which are for public safety.The reason DD should is because if an injury occurs as a result of failing to comply with these statutes or ordinances DD may have liability under the doctrine of (47) even if DD has otherwise acted reasonably.

The last claim deals with alcohol.We have two claims.One of these involves a patron of one of DD's restaurants.An adult who was obviously intoxicated was served by our bartender. She then left, and tried to drive home.She did not make it.She hit a telephone pole and a pedestrian who was seriously injured.The driver has no substantial assets, and the injured party is suing DD claiming that DD as the server of alcohol has liability to the injured person.This civil liability is referred to as (48) liability in California, and differs from (49) administrative law liability DD may have to California's Alcohol Beverage and Control Board ("ABC"), or possible criminal liability.

Absent other factors which may be present which I will discuss below, DD's civil liability is limited to the injuries caused by DD's sale of alcohol to an (50).If the facts show that the person who caused the injury was an employee who was (51) then DD would have liability.Also, if the drunk driver was a regular, and DD's bartender would normally call her an UBER ride, but did not get around to it this time then DD would have liability not because DD served her alcohol but because a (52) was created.However, I have learned that a friend of the drunk driver took the drunk driver's car keys, and gave them to our bartender who gave them back to the driver after the driver had been drinking.If this did occur then DD may have legal liability to the injured person because a (53) can be shown unless we can prove DD's bartender acted reasonably when returning the keys.

The other claim deals with an office party attended by both employees and quests of DD's employees. DD was not selling alcohol, but was providing it as a (54).One of the guests drank too much and hit another guest.The injured guest is suing DD.Both the victim and perpetrator are adults.Normally, under California's statute we would have no liability.However, it seems that we hired bouncer to protect those attending the party, and for whatever reason he was not doing his job.Hence, it is likely that DD will have liability not as a (55), but as (56).In all alcohol related cases which go to trial DD should be concerned about the jury's award of (57).To protect DD our lawyer should do the best she can in screening potential jurors during (58).If DD loses at trial an the claim is not covered by insurance, and a judgment is entered against DD, DD's property which is not exempt is subject to be seized by an duly issued and served (59).

words:

Action w/in the course and scope of her employment

Administrative law

Assumption of the risk

Breach of that duty

Cause of action

Caused

Comparative negligence

Compensatory damages

Contributory negligence

Coverage

Coverage

Covered claim

Cumis counsel

Dram shop

Duty to defend

Duty to indemnify

Emotional distress

Excess above the limits

Exclusions

Fiduciary duty

First party bad faith

Foreseeable

Insurance defense counsel

Insurer

Insuring clause

Invitee

Landowner

Liability

Licensee

Magnitude

Negligence

Negligence

Negligence per se

Obviously intoxicated minor

Owed a duty of care

Panel rates

Personal injury or property damage

Policy Limits

Premises liability

Premium payment

Probability that a condition

Public Policy

Punitive

Res ipsa loquitor

Reservation of rights

Self-Insured

Server

Social host

Special relationship

Status

Strict liability

Tender

Trespasser

Ultra- hazardous

Unreasonably

verdict

voir dire

writs of execution