No, not unless the HO was negligable. The contractor should have insurance for his ow protection. But then again, we are a sue happy liberal society
Generally, a homeowner may be held responsible for injuries to a contractor on their property if the injury resulted from a hazardous condition that the homeowner knew about or should have known about but failed to address. However, contractors are typically considered to be skilled professionals responsible for their own safety; therefore, liability may depend on the specifics of the situation, including the nature of the injury and the contractual agreements in place. It's advisable for both homeowners and contractors to have insurance and clear contracts to mitigate potential liabilities.
Certainly.
No, your medical payments do not apply to resident relatives, only to guests.
No, You are not automatically liable for an injury that occurs on your property simply because you own the property. It does not matter if you owned an object or not on which they person was injured. In order to be held liable you would have to have caused the injury either through direct action or in-action that led to the injury.
No. The employer is responsible.
If you get the same injury again during the course of your employment, you can claim workers compensation benefits again as long as the second injury is distinct from the first.
If there was something wrong with your house that caused an injury to someone in your house, then it may.
If it relates to a personal injury claim where the individual was injured on the policy holder's property then usually homeowner's insurance will provide compensation up to the specific amount stated in the policy.
No. In an injury case, the plaintiff must show how the defendant was responsible for the injuries. Since, in this case, you say the injury was the contractor's fault, you would have no liability.
If the injury is based on neglegence, no, but if the injury is by some specific intentional act of the homeowner, yes. To sue for injuries based on negligence, a plaintiff must prove that the homeowner had a duty of care to the burglar to provide a safe environment; that the homeowner breached that duty and that the burglar's injury was proximately caused by that breach of duty. Whether a duty of care exists is a matter of fairness and public policy and exists as a matter of law, not of fact. A homeowner does not owe a duty of care to a person illegally entering the house; therefore even if that person is injured by the homeowner's negligence, there is no liability because there was no duty of care. Never the less, a homeowner can be sued for certain intentional as opposed to negligent actions. The famous example is the so-called "spring-gun" situation. There the homeowner set up a rifle pointing right at the front door in such a way that anyone breaking in through the front door would set off the rifle and be shot dead or seriously wounded. The use of deadly force in that situation is excessive and the homeowner would be held liable.
the answer will be in your policy declarations you need to look there most do though
A retaining wall is considered part of coverage B or other structures protection. This coverage applies to structural damage only, and is somewhat limited. If someone is injured (while walking on a retaining wall etc.) certainly the homeowner could be liable for any medical expenses incurred as a result of the injury.