Common Misconceptions Regarding Slip And Fall Cases in California
Interviewer: What are the most common misconceptions that people have about slip and fall cases?
Richard Sailer: The most common misconception is that people believe if they slip and fall on somebody’s property, that it’s absolutely the property owner’s fault. Additionally, they believe that it’s strictly liability based on the ownership of the property and that’s not correct.
The Immediate Steps to Take Following Injury in a Slip and Fall Accident
Interviewer: What are some immediate steps that someone should take if they’ve been hurt in a slip and fall accident?
Richard Sailer: A photograph of the agent that caused the fall is very helpful because it proves that there was something on the floor that caused the slip. Furthermore, if they can identify the source of the substance, that’s always beneficial. Then, we can prove whether or not it’s something that’s dripping out of a display or a fixture, rather than something that another customer may have just dropped 2 seconds before they came around the corner.
The Monetary Worth of a Slip and Fall Claim
Interviewer: How much money is there in slip and fall case going to be worth?
Richard Sailer: A slip and fall case like any other personal injury case. The value of the case would be dependent on the extent of the injuries and the period of disability. It also depends if there are lost earnings, any permanent disability, and/or a need for future medical care. Each case is different and it would be completely dependent on the nature of the injury and the amount of damages incurred to determine how much it is worth.
The Reasons Behind Retaining An Attorney For a Slip and Fall Case in California
Interviewer: Why would I need a lawyer if I’m injured in a slip and fall?
Richard Sailer: Everybody believes that the store is automatically responsible for the fall so retaining an attorney is vital in building your case. Under the law, you have to first show that there was a dangerous condition on the premise. For example, you may have detergent, grapes, or a banana peel on the ground. It’s obviously a dangerous condition. The second prong of the test is if it was the store that created the dangerous condition or knew about it. Where it gets a little bit more difficult is establishing notice of the dangerous condition by verifying it if there was a surveillance video available.
You Need to Establish that the Store had Constructive Notice of the Conditions Causing the Slip and Fall
It is important to establish that the store had constructive notice of the debris on the floor. You can do that by determining when they swept the floor or where the spill occurred. A good case can built if we can establish that the spill or debris high visible or high traffic area, and show that they had ample opportunity to clean it up.
It is Necessary to Prove the Negligent Attitude of the Store was Responsible for the Slip and Fall
An example of a bad case in which the store wouldn’t be liable for would be slipping on an ice cube because it couldn’t have been on the floor for very long. You almost build the defense case for them by saying that you slipped and fell on ice. Similarly, you don’t want to slip and fall on an ice cream cone. An example of proving that the store was negligent is if you slipped and fell on a puddle of melted ice cream because you can show notice that it had been on the ground long enough to have melted.