Slip and fall

YOU DON’T PAY UNLESS WE WIN!

Slip and Fall

(1) If a person slips and falls on a transitory foreign substance in a business establishment, the injured person must prove that the business establishment had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition and should have taken action to remedy it. Constructive knowledge may be proven by circumstantial evidence showing that:

      (a) The dangerous condition existed for such a length of time that, in the exercise of ordinary care, the business establishment should have known of the condition; or

      (b) The condition occurred with regularity and was therefore foreseeable.

(2) This section does not affect any common-law duty of care owed by a person or entity in possession or control of a business premises.

Examples include failure to clean up spills on a floor, failure to repair worn carpeting, or failure to remove clutter from a hallway. This is where actual or constructive knowledge comes into play in a slip and fall claim.

Constructive knowledge can be established by laying out circumstantial evidence that shows:

• The hazardous condition existed on site for so long that the business establishment should have known of it were they exercising ordinary care;
• The dangerous condition occurred with such regularity that it was foreseeable.

Constructive knowledge is based upon the principle that the owner of the property has a duty to thoroughly inspect their premises to discover and clean or repair hazards. Once the hazard is discovered, the owner has a duty to address it. Accordingly, central to the litigation of slip and fall matters is a determination whether or not the owner of the property had in place proper inspection procedures such that he or she should have discovered the hazard. If proper inspection procedures were in place and followed, and the hazard was not discovered, then the owner of the property may not be held liable. However, in circumstances where the owner of the property does not have proper inspection procedures in place, then he or she is presumed to have “constructive knowledge” of the hazard and can be held responsible even though the owner did not actually know the hazard was present. Simply having rules for regular inspection procedures in place will not allow the property owner to avoid responsibility in a slip and fall case if the rules were not followed.