How did the unauthorised Karen get access to the workshop?

“Can” as in “is it possible”? Why would you not think it’s possible? Asking about chances of success would be speculative, but unfortunately these sort of cases do succeed. (Which is why safety warnings have become so ubiquitous that they are routinely ignored)

@ComicSansSeraphim in her self-importance, she just drove onto the premises, parked in front of the workshop door, and opened it.

@MichaelHall Can is meant as "does her claim have a legal basis or is it precluded"

@MichaelHall The main problem here is, that the whole situation might at first glance be akin to boobytrapping a house (which decidedly is illegal and allowed the burglar to claim damages), but here the place actually is compliant with the mandated rules, they are posted and it is the deliberate violation of those by Karen that leads to her injuries.

in other words: we're having parts of... Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928), (was it foreseeable that a Karen would violate every safety warning... and then smack her own head with a crane?) and Katko v. Briney, 183 N.W.2d 657 (Iowa 1971) (where the thief got damages for the shotgun into the leg) and others.

Suppose Karen is blind (someone else drove the car)? What prevented her from entering the dangerous area?

@WeatherVane a closed door she had to first find and open

Not a locked door? Blind people don't lack skills: but they can't read.

@WeatherVane they would be unable to find the door without someone helping them, who would be well aware that they are trespassing. Workshops are decidedly not demanded to be locked, in fact it is forbidden to lock them during work hours because of fire safety.

@kisspuska if the door was at least closed, it's a closer call. I'd still lean to negligence. If the interior include effective boobytraps that can kill, then even more so. If mere the risk of serious bodily injury, maybe less so, but still.

@kisspuska the main reason for the injury is the choice of bad shoes: stiletto heels that break when stepping into safety compliant grating. Any other shoes would have prevented the accident in the hypothetical

She didn’t assume the risk; any normal non-boobytrap like floor would, as you admit, not have caused the injury.

Including the protocol or practice to leave the door unlocked? If I was a jury, it’s a close call to me. If I was the defendant, I’d be weighing settling for the portion of chance to lose under confidential settlement communications. I feel like shared liability at best (for defendant) is inevitable stilettos included.

Also, “nothing demands” is a co conclusory assertion of law reasonable care is the threshold, I believe.

@kisspuska Fire codes preventing to lock the main access door to a workshop exist since 1911. The choice of name was deliberate: the fictive person does regard themselves beyond the clearly states rules.

Re "it is forbidden to lock them during work hours because of fire safety". It is very well established technology that allows doors that are locked from the outside to be exited from the inside. Perhaps for at least a century. And please don't use the get-out "blind people can't find doors without help." How patronising can you get?

Suppose there is a hole dug in the road. In UK a sign saying "dangerous hole" isn't enough. There has to be a physical barrier too.

You can always use emergency-release doors that opens from the inside and not the outside, that excuse probably worked the first 10 years after that fire code. The name of choice… then you are deliberately ranting as the question specifically relate whether she did or not, but then you imply and assert you believe she did so which one is it? Sexist regardless.

Try using the excuse "that blind person should have had an assistant" in court and see how far you get.