What is often a defense against a premises liability claim?

In a premises liability claim, one of the most common defenses is that the injured party was trespassing. This defense rests on the principle that property owners owe different duties of care depending on the status of the person on their property. Generally, property owners have a higher duty of care toward invitees (people invited onto the property, such as customers or friends) than toward trespassers (those who enter without permission). If it can be established that the injured party was trespassing at the time of the incident, the property owner may not be held liable for injuries sustained, as they generally owe a lower duty of care to those who do not have permission to be there.

This effectively limits the property owner's liability because trespassers are expected to be aware of the risks associated with entering someone else's property without permission, and the landowner is only responsible for willful or wanton conduct that causes harm to the trespasser. In this way, demonstrating that the injured person was unlawfully present can shield the property owner from liability.

The other options do not function as robust defenses in the same way. Being unaware of the unsafe condition may not absolve liability, as property owners are often expected to regularly inspect their premises. Similarly, claims