Computerized method and system for determining the contribution of defenses to premises liability for an accident

• US 7,672,860 B2
• Filed: 09/09/2002
• Issued: 03/02/2010
• Est. Priority Date: 09/09/2002
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: Computer Sciences Corporation (DXC Technology Company)
• Original Assignee: Computer Sciences Corporation (DXC Technology Company)
• Inventors: Wahlbin, Stefan, Reynolds, Gilda
• Primary Examiner(s): Koppikar; Vivek D
• Application Number:
  US10/238,981
• Publication Number:
  US 20040054559A1
• Time in Patent Office: 2,731 Days
• Field of Search: 705 2- 4
• US Class Current: 705/4
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/10 Office automation; Time management
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 40/08 Insurance

Abstract

A computer-implemented method and system for estimating a contribution of a defense to premises liability is provided. In one embodiment, a set of characteristics of an accident may be provided to a computer system. A contribution of the defense may be determined from at least one of the characteristics of the accident. In one embodiment, a characteristic may include a location of the accident. The defense may selected from a group of one or more defenses.

Claims

1. A computer-implemented method of estimating a contribution of a defense to premises liability, comprising:

providing to a computer system a set of characteristics of a premises accident that has actually occurred, the premises accident giving rise to premises liability of a landowner or possessor of the premises to a party injured in the premises accident as a result of at least one condition that existed on a premises;

estimating, from at least one of the characteristics of the accident that has actually occurred, the contribution of two or more defenses to the premises liability of the landowner or possessor of the premises to a party injured in the premises accident as a result of the at least one condition that existed on the premises while the injured party was on the premises, the estimated contribution of at least one of the two or more defenses to premises liability being expressed as a proportion of liability; and

estimating a premises liability of the landowner or possessor to the party injured in the premises accident, wherein estimating the premises liability includes the computer system performing an adjustment to the premises liability based on the estimated contribution of at least two of the defenses to premises liability, the estimated premises liability being expressed as a proportion of a total liability for the premises accident, wherein at least two of the defenses are not independent of one another, wherein the adjustment to premises liability based on the estimated contribution of the at least two defenses is greater than or less than the adjustment that would result from adding the individual contributions of the at least two defenses.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the estimated contribution of the two or more defenses to premises liability is expressed as a percentage.

3. The method of claim 1, wherein the estimated contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liability is expressed as a range of percentage liability.

4. The method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the defenses to premises liability is selected from the group consisting of:

a failure to keep a proper lookout defense, an open and obvious defense, a plain view doctrine defense, a failure to use due care defense, a failure to choose an alternate path defense, a claimant under the influence defense, an implied assumption of risk defense, a failure to heed warning defense, a claimant created the condition or defect defense, a right to rely on owner defense, a knowledge of danger requirement defense, a forgetfulness defense, a distraction defense, a choice of paths rule defense, a disability defense, a youth defense, and a step in the dark defense.

5. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least two of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution of a failure to use due care defense, wherein determining the contribution of the failure to use due care defense comprises determining whether a claimant was aware of a hazard.

6. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution of a failure to use due care defense, wherein determining the contribution of the failure to use due care defense comprises determining whether the claimant should have been aware of a hazard.

7. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution of a failure to use due care defenses, wherein determining the contribution of the failure to use due care defense comprises determining whether an alternate path choice was available to the claimant.

8. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution of a failure to use due care defense, wherein determining the contribution of the failure to use due care defense comprises determining whether a claimant made a careless choice.

9. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution of an alternate path defense, wherein determining the contribution of the alternate path defense comprises determining whether a claimant against the landowner or possessor of the premises was aware of a hazard on the premises.

10. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution of an alternate path defense, wherein determining the contribution of the alternate path defense comprises determining whether a claimant against the landowner or possessor of the premises should have been aware of a hazard on the premises.

11. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution of an alternate path defense, wherein determining the contribution of the alternate path defense comprises determining whether an alternate path choice was available to a claimant.

12. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution of an alternate path defense, wherein determining the contribution of the alternate path defense comprises determining whether a claimant made a careless choice of path.

13. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution of an implied assumption of risk defense, wherein determining the contribution of the implied assumption of risk defense comprises determining whether a claimant against the landowner or possessor of the premises had full knowledge of a hazard on the premises.

14. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution of an implied assumption of risk defense, wherein determining the contribution of the implied assumption of risk defense comprises determining whether a claimant proceeded deliberately.

15. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution of a failure to heed warning defense, wherein determining the contribution of the failure to heed warning defense comprises determining whether a claimant against the landowner or possessor of the premises had adequate warning of a dangerous condition on the premises.

16. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution of a failure to heed warning defense, wherein determining the contribution of the failure to heed warning defense comprises determining whether a claimant heeded the warning.

17. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution of a failure to keep a proper lookout defense, wherein determining the contribution of the failure to keep a proper lookout defense comprises determining whether a dangerous condition on the premises was apparent or whether a claimant against the landowner or possessor of the premises saw the dangerous condition.

18. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution of an open and obvious defense with respect to a dangerous condition on the premises, wherein determining the contribution of the open and obvious defense comprises determining lighting at a location of the accident.

19. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution of an open and obvious defense with respect to a dangerous condition on the premises, wherein determining the contribution of the open and obvious defense comprises determining contrast of the dangerous condition.

20. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution of an open and obvious defense with respect to a dangerous condition on the premises, wherein determining the contribution of the open and obvious defense comprises determining size of the dangerous condition.

21. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution of an open and obvious defense with respect to a dangerous condition on the premises, wherein determining the contribution of the open and obvious defense comprises determining whether the dangerous condition on the premises was obstructed, or whether an obstruction was large.

22. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution of a claimant created condition or defect defense, wherein determining the contribution of the claimant created condition or defect defense comprises determining whether a claimant against the landowner or possessor of the premises was solely or partially responsible for a dangerous condition or defect on the premises.

23. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution of a right to rely on owner defense, wherein determining the contribution of the right to rely on owner defense comprises determining whether the premises is commercial or residential, whether a claimant against the landowner or possessor of the premises failed to avoid a defective or dangerous condition on the premises of which the claimant knew or should have known.

24. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution of a right to rely on owner defense, wherein determining the contribution of the right to rely on owner defense comprises determining whether a claimant against the landowner or possessor of the premises failed to avoid a defective or dangerous condition on the premises of which the claimant knew or should have known.

25. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution of a right to rely on owner defense, wherein determining the contribution of the right to rely on owner defense comprises determining whether there was a distraction.

26. The method of claim 1, wherein determining the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution of a right to rely on owner defense, wherein determining the contribution of the right to rely on owner defense comprises determining whether a claimant against the landowner or possessor of the premises did not appreciate the risks of a dangerous condition on the premises.

27. The method of claim 1, wherein determining the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution of a knowledge of danger requirement defense, wherein determining the contribution of the knowledge of danger requirement defense comprises determining whether a defect on the premises was patent or obvious.

28. The method of claim 1, wherein determining the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution of a knowledge of danger requirement defense, wherein determining the contribution of the knowledge of danger requirement defense comprises determining whether a claimant against the landowner or possessor of the premises visited a location of the accident for daily and commonplace use.

29. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution of a knowledge of danger requirement defense, wherein determining the contribution of the knowledge of danger requirement defense comprises determining whether a claimant against the landowner or possessor of the premises had made repeated visits the location of the accident.

30. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution of a knowledge of danger requirement defense, wherein determining the contribution of the knowledge of danger requirement defense comprises determining whether a claimant against the landowner or possessor of the premises had previous experience with premises of the same kind as a premises at which the accident took place.

31. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution of a forgetfulness defense, wherein determining the contribution of the forgetfulness defense comprises determining whether a claimant against the landowner or possessor of the premises had knowledge of a dangerous condition on the premises.

32. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution of a forgetfulness defense, wherein determining the contribution of the forgetfulness defense comprises determining whether a distraction was present at a location of the accident.

33. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution of a distraction defense, wherein determining the contribution of the distraction defense comprises determining whether a condition or circumstance diverted a claimant'"'"'s attention.

34. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution of a choice of paths rule defense, wherein determining the contribution of the choice of paths rule defense comprises determining whether a claimant against the landowner or possessor of the premises selected an unsafe path on the premises.

35. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution of a choice of paths rule defense, wherein determining the contribution of the choice of paths rule defense comprises determining whether there was evidence of a safe course on the premises.

36. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution of a choice of paths rule defenses, wherein determining the contribution of the choice of paths rule defense comprises determining whether there was evidence of a dangerous course on the premises.

37. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution of the choice of paths rule defense, wherein determining the contribution of the choice of paths rule defense comprises determining whether there was evidence of facts which would put a reasonable person on notice of danger.

38. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution of a choice of paths rule defense, wherein determining the contribution of the choice of paths rule defense comprises determining whether a claimant had actual knowledge of danger.

39. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution relating to a disability defense, wherein determining the contribution relating to the disability defense comprises determining whether a claimant had a physical disability.

40. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution relating to a disability defense, wherein determining the contribution relating to the disability defense comprises determining whether a claimant was frail or elderly.

41. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses comprises determining the contribution relating to a disability defense, wherein determining the contribution relating to the disability defense comprises determining whether a claimant was pregnant.

42. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution relating to a disability defense, wherein determining the contribution relating to the disability defense comprises determining whether a claimant put forth appropriate effort to protect the claimant'"'"'s safety.

43. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution relating to a disability defense, wherein determining the contribution relating to the disability defense comprises determining whether a claimant avoided a position likely to be dangerous to the claimant in light of the claimant'"'"'s disability.

44. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one the defenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution of a youth defense, wherein determining the contribution of the youth defense comprises determining an age of a claimant.

45. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution of a youth defense, wherein determining the contribution of the youth defense comprises determining maturity of a claimant.

46. the method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution of a youth defense, wherein determining the contribution of the youth defense comprises determining intelligence of a claimant.

47. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution of a youth defense, wherein determining the contribution of the youth defense comprises determining training of a claimant.

48. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution of a youth defense, wherein determining the contribution of the youth defense comprises determining discretion of a claimant.

49. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution of a youth defense, wherein determining the contribution of the youth defense comprises determining alertness of a claimant.

50. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution of a youth defense, wherein determining the contribution of the youth defense comprises determining whether a claimant has the capacity for negligence.

51. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of the at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution of a youth defense, wherein determining the contribution of the youth defense comprises determining whether a claimant exercised a degree of care for his or her own safety as ordinarily exercised by children of the same age.

52. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution of a youth defense, wherein determining the contribution of the youth defense comprises determining whether a claimant exercised a degree of care for his or her own safety as ordinarily exercised by children with the same capacity for negligence.

53. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution of a youth defense, wherein determining the contribution of the youth defense comprises determining whether a claimant exercised a degree of care for his or her own safety as ordinarily exercised by children with the same discretion.

54. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution of a youth defense, wherein determining the contribution of the youth defense comprises determining whether a claimant exercised a degree of care for his or her own safety as ordinarily exercised by children with the same experience.

55. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution of an alternate path defense, wherein determining the contribution of the alternate path defense comprises determining whether darkness rendered use of eyesight ineffective to define a claimant'"'"'s surroundings.

56. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution of an alternate path defense, wherein determining the contribution of the alternate path defense comprises determining whether a claimant'"'"'s actions were justified.

57. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution of an alternate path defense, wherein determining the contribution of the alternate path defense comprises determining whether any special stress of circumstances inhibited a claimant from finding out obstructions to his or her safe progress.

58. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses to premises liability comprises determining the contribution of an alternate path defense, wherein determining the contribution of the alternate path defense comprises determining whether a claimant was familiar with the premises.

59. The method of claim 1, wherein the estimated contribution to the two or more defenses to premises liability is estimated from knowledge obtained from experienced claims adjusters.

62. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the premises liability includes adjusting the liability based on a jurisdiction of the premises accident.

63. The method of claim 1, wherein the adjustment to premises liability based on the estimated contribution of the at least two defenses is greater than the adjustment that would result from adding the individual contributions of the at least two defenses.

64. The method of claim 1, wherein the adjustment to premises liability based on the estimated contribution of the at least two defenses is less than the adjustment that would result from adding the individual contributions of the at least two defenses.

65. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses comprises:

associating two or more outcomes in which one or more of the defenses applies with an effect on liability;

storing the two or more outcomes in the computer system; and

the computer system automatically determining, at one or more decision points, which one of the two or more outcomes occurred.

66. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one of the defenses comprises:

evaluating the injured party'"'"'s familiarity with the premises; and

estimating an effect of an implied assumption of risk defense based on the injured party'"'"'s familiarity with the premises.

67. The method of claim 66, wherein evaluating the injured party'"'"'s familiarity with the premises comprises:

determining whether the injured party had ever been on the premises before;

determining whether the injured party ant had ever noticed the dangerous condition;

determining how often the injured party is on the premises;

determining temporal proximity of the injured party'"'"'s visits to premises; and

assigning an estimate of the effect on liability of an implied assumption of risk defense based on at least one of the determinations.

68. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating the contribution of at least one defense comprises:

evaluating the injured party'"'"'s familiarity with the dangerous condition; and

estimating an effect of an implied assumption of risk defense based on the injured party'"'"'s familiarity with the dangerous condition.

69. The method of claim 68, wherein evaluating the injured party'"'"'s familiarity with the dangerous condition comprises:

determining whether the injured party had ever noticed the dangerous condition;

determining how often the injured party is on the premises;

determining temporal proximity of the injured party'"'"'s visits to premises; and

assigning an estimate of the effect on liability of an implied assumption of risk defense based on at least one of the determinations.

60. A system, comprising:

a CPU;

a data memory coupled to the CPU; and

a system memory coupled to the CPU, wherein the system memory is configured to store one or more computer programs executable by the CPU, and wherein the computer programs are executable to implement a method for estimating a contribution of a defense to premises liability, the method comprising;

providing to a computer system a set of characteristics of a premises accident that has actually occurred, the premises accident giving rise to premises liability of a landowner or possessor of the premises to a party injured in the premises accident as a result of at least one condition that existed on a premises; and

estimating, from at least one of the characteristics of the accident that has actually occurred, the contribution of two or more defenses to the premises liability of the landowner or possessor of the premises to a party injured in the premises accident as a result of the at least one condition that existed on the premises while the injured party was on the premises, the estimated contribution of at least one of the two or more defenses to premises liability being expressed as a proportion of liability; and

estimating a premises liability of the landowner or possessor to the party injured in the premises accident , wherein estimating the premises liability includes performing an adjustment to the premises liability based on the estimated contribution of at least two of the defenses to premises liability, the estimated premises liability being expressed as a proportion of a total liability for the premises accident, wherein at least two of the defenses are not independent of one another, wherein the adjustment to premises liability based on the estimated contribution of the at least two defenses is greater than or less than the adjustment that would result from adding the individual contributions of the at least two defenses.

61. A computer readable storage medium comprising program instructions stored thereon, wherein the program instructions are computer-executable to implement a method for estimating a contribution of a defense to premises liability, the method comprising:

providing to a computer system a set of characteristics of a premises accident that has actually occurred, the premises accident giving rise to premises liability of a landowner or possessor of the premises to a party injured in the premises accident as a result of at least one condition that existed on a premises; and

estimating, from at least one of the characteristics of the accident that has actually occurred, the contribution of two or more defenses to the premises liability of the landowner or possessor of the premises to a party injured in the premises accident as a result of the at least one condition that existed on the premises while the injured party was on the premises, the estimated contribution of at least one of the two or more defenses to premises liability being expressed as a proportion of liability; and

estimating a premises liability of the landowner or possessor to the party injured in the premises accident, wherein estimating the premises liability includes performing an adjustment to the premises liability based on the estimated contribution of at least two of the defenses to premises liability, the estimated premises liability being expressed as a proportion of a total liability for the premises accident, wherein at least two of the defenses are not independent of one another, wherein the adjustment to premises liability based on the estimated contribution of the at least two defenses is greater than or less than the adjustment that would result from adding the individual contributions of the at least two defenses.