Slip and fall cases differ from the usual personal injury cases in that accidents do happen. People slip and fall every day without the fault of another. However, there are instances where a third party’s failure to keep the premises safe causes an injury that would not have otherwise have happened but for the unsafe condition of the premises. If you are present on a third party’s premises legally, you have a right to expect that the premises are kept reasonably safe. Here we will take a closer look on dangerous conditions caused by slip and fall cases. If you are injured on a third party’s premises as a result of another’s carelessness or fault, you could have a personal injury claim. An essential aspect of a slip and fall case is proving that a dangerous condition existed and caused your injury.
What Is A Dangerous Condition?
You must first show there existed a dangerous condition on the premises. A “dangerous condition” is a defect on the property that creates a substantial risk of injury to the general public when the property is used with reasonable care and in a reasonable foreseeable manner.
When Should The Premises Owner Be Held Responsible For the Dangerous Condition that have caused Slip and Fall Cases?
The premises owner or occupant is liable if a dangerous condition caused a slip and fall accident and resulted in injury if:
- The property owner or their agents, such as an employee, should have recognized the dangerous condition and taken steps to remedy it. For example, a store premises had an uneven surface and the owner failed to remedy it, which in turn caused an injury. The question as to liability is really whether a reasonable person would have identified the condition as a hazard and whether or not the defendant enough ample time to remedy it.
- Or, the property owner created the dangerous condition and failed to remedy it, in which case it was reasonably foreseeable that a person would be injured. For example, if an owner failed to keep a building up to code or left a hazardous condition outside of their premises, it is reasonable to infer that a person could be injured as a result.
Some of the facts a Court or insurance company considers when determining liability is whether the property owner regularly maintained the premises to prevent injuries to third parties and how long the dangerous condition existed. For example, whether the property was up to code and building standards, regularly cleaned, supervised, and inspected are facts that a Court or insurance company will consider. For example, if an oil spill or other dangerous condition existed for just a few minutes and the owner took immediate steps to make the dangerous condition clear or clean it up, liability is less likely than if the condition had existed for days, weeks or months and the owner did nothing.
Defense attorneys often argue that the plaintiff caused their own injury. Some facts that are considered in determining liability are whether the plaintiff was doing something illegal (such as trespassing), was distracted (such as texting or using the cellphone), or was otherwise ignoring signs (such as a clearly marked area saying ‘Do Not Enter’’). In these situations, it is essential that the plaintiff be clear that they were acting legally and within the bounds of what a reasonable person would do in a similar situation.
Examples of When Someone Is Liable For Slip and Fall Cases Caused By A Dangerous Condition
These are some examples of situations in which a slip and fall could occur and result in liability.
- Neglected hazard – This is a situation where a dangerous condition has existed for a period of time and the premises owner or operator either knew or should have known about it if the premises were reasonably maintained. For example, a person is standing on a platform waiting for a train. There is a banana peel on the ground near the entrance to the train. The banana peel is black and has been there for a considerable period of time. The person waiting for the train slips and falls on the banana peel. It is likely that the premises owner and operator would be liable for the injured person’s injuries since they knew or should have known about the banana peel if the premises were reasonably maintained and that it could be dangerous to train passengers.
- Potential for hazard – This is a situation where there are potentially hazardous materials or unsafe conditions on the premises and the owner and operator may have known or may not have known of the dangerous condition. For example, the same person is waiting for their train on a platform. This time, the person waiting for the train slips on a yellow banana peel when that person tries to board the train resulting injury. The train station conditions are that the train station is flooded with passengers and there is a vendor at the station who sells bananas. The owner and operator swear that their staff sweeps the floor several times a day to prevent accidents and they had done so on the day of the accident. The injured person would have more difficulty proving liability given the traffic conditions and circumstances at the train station that day. That is and for example, it would be much more difficult to prove that another passenger did not drop the banana peel which the injured person slipped on just minutes before that person’s injury.
- Plaintiff’s (injured person’s) carelessness – This is a situation where the plaintiff probably would not have been injured but for his or her own carelessness. For example, say the plaintiff is walking near a warehouse and a gate is open. Plaintiff wanders onto the warehouse premises and a beam falls and injures the plaintiff. The warehouse entrance is clearly marked “Authorized Persons Only.” Plaintiff would not have been injured but for entering the warehouse without authorization. Thus, the owner and operator of the warehouse probably would not be liable for plaintiff’s injuries. However, even though plaintiff may not have a strong case, plaintiff could possibly recover for his or her injuries. Even though there was a sign, the gate was open and it would be reasonable to assume that a person might come in to do something normal, like asking for directions. An improperly affixed beam falling could have been prevented with regular maintenance or simply locking the gate and thus, the owner and operator could be liable for the plaintiff’s injuries.
Seek a Slip and Fall Cases Accident Attorney
If you were injured in a slip and fall accident involving a dangerous condition, consult our highly experienced slip and fall accident attorneys with McCarthy, Rowden & Baker for help by calling 800-373-6050.