“Slip and fall” is a term used for a personal injury case in which a person slips or trips and falls, and is injured on someone else’s property. These cases usually fall under the broader category of cases known as “premises liability” claims, because slip and fall accidents usually occur on property (or “premises”) owned or maintained by someone else, and the owner or possessor of the property may be held legally responsible.
Dangerous conditions such as torn carpeting, changes in flooring, poor lighting, narrow stairs, or a wet floor can cause someone to slip and hurt him or herself inside a building. Other instances of slip and fall incidents can occur when people trip on broken or cracked public sidewalks, or trip and fall on stairs or escalators. In addition, a slip and fall case might arise when someone slips or trips and falls because of rain, ice, snow or a hidden hazard, such as a pothole in the ground.
There is no precise way to determine when someone else is legally responsible for your injuries if you slip or trip. Each case turns on whether the property owner acted carefully so that slipping or tripping was not likely to happen, and whether you were careless in not seeing or avoiding the condition that caused your fall. Here are some general rules to help you decide whether someone else was at fault for your slip or trip and fall injury.
In most cases, a person injured in a slip and fall on someone else’s property must prove that the cause of the accident was a “dangerous condition”, and that the owner or possessor of the property knew of the dangerous condition. A dangerous condition must present an unreasonable risk to a person on the property, and it must have been a condition that the injured party should not have anticipated under the circumstances. This latter requirement implies that people must be aware of, and avoid, obvious dangers. In order to establish that a property owner or possessor knew of a dangerous condition, it must be shown that:
For a property owner or possessor to be held liable, it must have been foreseeable that his negligence would create the danger at issue. For instance, if a can of paint falls to the ground and spills into an aisle in a hardware store and, one day later, the store has not noticed or cleaned up the spill, and someone slips in the paint and is injured, one might argue it was foreseeable that the store’s negligence in failing to inspect its aisles and clean up spills would result in someone slipping and injuring himself on a spilled item.
Occasionally, a plaintiff can prove negligence by showing that the property owner violated a relevant statute. For example, building codes often dictate when and where handrails and other similar features must be installed. If you fall on a stairway that lacked appropriate handrails, and the lack of the handrail caused your injuries, you may have a valid claim against the building owner based on his or her building code violation.
In order to recover for a slip and fall injury sustained on another’s property, there must be a responsible party whose negligence caused the injury. This sounds obvious, but many people do not realize that some injuries are simply accidents caused, if anything, by their own carelessness.
For instance, if someone falls simply because he was not looking where he was walking, he cannot recover against the property owner if the owner was in no way at fault, no matter how serious the injury. If an injured person is only partially at fault for his own injury, he might still be able to recover from another, but the dollar amount of his recovery might be reduced.
To be legally responsible for the injuries someone suffered from slipping or tripping and falling on someone else’s property, the owner/possessor of a store, restaurant, or other business (or an employee of the business):
The third situation is the most common, but is also less clear-cut than the first two because of the phrase “should have known.” Liability in these cases is decided by common sense. The law determines whether the owner or occupier of property was careful by deciding if the steps the owner or occupier took to keep the property safe were reasonable.