Slip & Fall Accidents

Slip & Fall Accidents

Here are some important factors to consider if you have been injured in a slip and fall accident:

STATISTICS SHOW SLIPS, TRIPS, & FALLS ARE A LEADING CAUSE OF SERIOUS INJURIES:  Falls represent the leading cause of hospital emergency room visits in the United States (21.3%), with Slips and Falls accounting for over 1 million visits per year (12% of total falls). 


“Falls account for 87% of all fractures among people over the age of 65 and are the second leading cause of spinal cord and brain injury.”


“Floors and Flooring materials alone contribute directly to more than 2 million fall injuries each year according to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (SPSC).”


“Fractures are the most serious consequences of falls. For people aged 65-84 years, falls are the second leading cause of injury-related death, for those aged 85 years or older, falls are the leading cause of injury-related death.”


Despite their prevalence, many personal injury attorneys do not take slips and falls because they are bitterly fought by insurance carriers, and may require extensive litigation and advances in expert fees before insurance carriers are willing to make a reasonable settlement offer. They also require extensive attorney expertise to properly litigate, often having a high degree of complexity, often pursued to trial only by attorneys that devote a large part of their practice to premises liability. In some cases, the insurance carrier will refuse to offer any settlement, requiring a trial to resolve the issues, despite the fact it is a solid case. In any slip-and-fall case, several common issues come up that every potential client should be aware of to determine whether they have the evidence needed to bring a viable claim. 

 

UNSAFE SLIPPING CONDITIONS & DEFECTS CAUSING INJURIES VIOLATES CALIFORNIA LAW: In any SLIP and fall case, one of the first issues you need to look for is whether there was any negligence that led to causing your injury. When a pedestrian is seriously injured due to a slip and fall, California common law allows juries to decide whether an unsafe slipping hazard is sufficient enough to be considered negligence in most cases. Below is a list of common slip defects or dangerous tripping conditions that may lead to potential liability by a business, retail store, landowner, landlord, business operator or owner, maintenance crew, management company, etc.:

FLOORS WITH AN UNSAFE FRICTION COEFFICIENT VIOLATE INDUSTRY STANDARDS AND CALIFORNIA LAW:  Unsafe levels of "slipperiness" is measurable and well-defined in the safety industry. Slippery floors, walkways, decks, and stairs are calculated and established by industry standards and are measured by the COF [Coefficient of Friction]. Indoor floors that have a .5 COF are too slippery to be safe according to OSHA’s minimum suggested floor safety standards.

Other guidelines have a similar minimum standard, such as the ADA, CA Building Codes, ASTM Guidelines/Standards, NFSI, etc. It should be noted that this is only a minimum criterion given a flat, indoor dry surface and that OSHA and other standards place the threshold far greater depending on other circumstances, such as exterior walkways, the slope of the surface, exposure to moisture, oily substances (such as old leaves), etc., all requiring the need for greater friction given the circumstances. Outdoor/exterior sidewalks, walkways, stairs, and decks need much higher COF to take into account rain, leaves (which can leave very slippery or oily residues), and other conditions.

 

RETAIL STORES-INDOOR SPILLS:  Retail stores, such as grocery stores, malls, clothing stores, restaurants, etc., have specific industry standards on how to keep indoor floors safe for customers. Generally speaking, the floor must be inspected and swept every hour. Stores must keep a “SWEEP LOG” documenting that the floor was swept every hour. A videotape of the store during the date of the incident will document whether the floor was inspected and/or swept every hour. However, in our experience, videotapes are rarely produced when they would demonstrate liability on the part of the store. The typical excuse is that the videotapes have been “taped over” or “lost” by the time litigation ensues [unless it shows that the store was not at fault, in which case the videotapes are usually always produced].

 

In retail, when a floor is mopped, or liquid is spilled, a WARNING CONE OR SIGN should be immediately placed to assure that customers/pedestrians are aware of the condition. However, the store must first have either been notified of the spill or had constructive notice of the spill (for example, been in the vicinity of the spill when it occurred and failed to see it, or waiters who fail to see a spill after serving the table). The elderly and children are especially vulnerable to wet floors in retail establishments, as the flooring can become very slippery given the coefficient of friction of their floors. Warning signs signal parents and the elderly to be extra careful or walk around the area altogether depending on their situation. Without a warning sign or cone, customers and pedestrians are placed at unnecessary risk of injury.

 

If a customer spills something and another customer slips on it before the area could be inspected either through a normal sweep or by constructive notice, there is likely no liability. However, often some facts demonstrate that the employees knew, or should have known, about the spill, especially if it is within sight of the point of sale area, or was within view of one of the employees when the spill occurred. Employees are required to be reasonably aware of the condition of the floor within their field of vision.

 

If an employee is responsible for causing a spill or condition, or for leaving debris such as a box or dropped produce, there is no requirement of “notice” since the act itself created the hazardous condition, establishing liability on the part of the store.

PUBLIC CLAIMS VERSUS PRIVATE CLAIMS: [IMPORTANT DEADLINES] There are important differences between public and private property in any trip and fall case. You must evaluate who owned and/or operated the property where the defect existed to ensure you do not miss any important deadlines in filing your claim. Here are some of the major differences you need to consider immediately after you have determined whether you have a personal injury case:

 

LEGAL ISSUES: SLIP & FALLS OR TRIP & FALLS

NEGLIGENCE AND COMPARATIVE FAULT


California Civil Jury Instructions [CACI] are the actual jury instructions given to the jury when trying premises cases. Here are a couple of the basic instructions [“Plaintiff” is the injured person, “Defendant” is the business/insurance carrier that is being sued]:


400. ESSENTIAL FACTUAL ELEMENTS

JOHN DOE claims that he was harmed by DEFENDANT’s negligence. To establish this claim, JOHN DOE must prove all of the following:

  1. That DEFENDANT was negligent;
  2. That JOHN DOE was harmed; and
  3. That DEFENDANT’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing JOHN DOE’s harm.

401. BASIC STANDARD OF CARE

Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care to prevent harm to oneself or to others.  A person can be negligent by acting or by failing to act. A person is negligent if he or she does something that a reasonably careful person would not do in the same situation or fails to do something that a reasonably careful person would do in the same situation. You must decide how a reasonably careful person would have acted in DEFENDANT’s situation.

The above standard applies to all premises cases. The failure of a defendant to do something that a reasonably careful person would do is a breach of the standard of care applied in all premises slip and fall & trip and fall cases. In most instances, cracks in sidewalks, defective steps, spills, etc., are conditions that reasonably careful people would clean up or warn customers or pedestrians about if they exist. Therefore, in premises cases, often the pictures of the condition or defect itself are the best evidence in establishing liability.

405. COMPARATIVE FAULT OF PLAINTIFF

DEFENDANT claims that PLAINTIFF’s own negligence contributed to her harm. To succeed on this claim, DEFENDANT must prove both of the following:

  1. That PLAINTIFF was negligent; and
  2. That PLAINTIFF’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing his harm.

If DEFENDANT’s proves the above, PLAINTIFF’s damages are reduced by your determination of the percentage of PLAINTIFF’s responsibility.

The above gives rise to perhaps the most common defense by insurance companies in Slip and Fall or Trip and Fall cases: COMPARATIVE FAULT. Typically, the defense tries to establish that the injured person was negligent themselves by not looking where they were going [i.e., they should have seen the spill, crack, tripping hazard, etc., before tripping or slipping on it]. This is somewhat of a psychological issue, because most people walk with a narrow area of focus ahead of them, using their peripheral vision to unconsciously take care of things approaching their feet and other areas that are in the ancillary field of vision. Insurance carriers often try to confuse clients by this difficult to describe process, by trying to make clients look like they were being reckless or unsafe, even when they were just walking normally.  Our firm is well acquainted with this and other techniques by defense attorneys and insurance carriers. We retain human factors experts that are well acquainted with this and other techniques used by the insurance carriers to undermine legitimate claims, and we fully prepare our clients to navigate these legal strategies and tactics that are based more on trickery and chicanery than relevant, practical reality.

Share by: