Every year, thousands of people are injured by falling, whether from tripping over obstacles or from slipping. Though some of these accidents can’t be prevented, there are others that are clearly the fault of someone else’s negligence. In cases where the fall could have reasonably been prevented by a property owner, a lawsuit can be brought against the responsible party for damages.

To succeed in a lawsuit against a negligent property owner, various things need to be considered by the court. First, the area must be one that a reasonable person would expect to be safe. Places like retail stores, offices, and restaurants fall into this category – they are open to the public as part of the normal course of their operations.

There are three general “tests” used to determine that a property owner is liable for dangerous conditions that led to a fall:

1) If the owner or its employee caused the danger. Leaving objects lying around where they can be tripped on, leaving floors slippery without warning signs, leaving projects half-done with tools lying on the ground, and other such things are examples of this type of responsibility.

2) The owner or its employees knew of a hazard, but ignored it. Fairly common in retail stores, where things tend to become “someone else’s job” and nobody ends up actually doing the clean-up.

3) The hazard was such that a reasonable person in charge of the maintenance of the property would have noticed it and fixed it.

The most common test the courts have to consider in slip-and-fall cases is No. 3 Common sense is usually applied to determine whether the hazard would have been seen, and fixed, by a “reasonable” person. Since everyone’s definition of “reasonable” varies, this can become quite murky, especially when the property owner is strenuously arguing that it was reasonable to not have noticed the danger.

To make things clearer, there are a few things that courts consider when faced with the issue of determining what dangers a reasonable person would know about and have done about them.

1) How long had the danger been present? An owner is more likely to be liable if the danger had been there for a while, because he or his employees would have had more time to notice it or be informed of it.

2) Is there a regular schedule for examination and maintenance of the premises, and does the owner have proof of that?

3) If the danger was in the form of an object that was tripped over, was there a good reason for the item to have been left there? If so, was the object clearly marked as a hazard?

4) If there was originally a purpose for the object being where it was, was the object removed when that purpose had been fulfilled? If not, was it left out due to negligence or laziness on the part of whoever left it there?

5) Was the area properly lit?

In a negligence lawsuit, the courts will look at all of these factors, and likely others that pertain to your case in particular. If it turns out that there was negligence in some of these areas, it is favorable to your position and you are likely to gain some compensation as a result. The more negligent the property owner or its employees were, the more likely you are to get a decent award.

Receiving Just Compensation

It is fairly easy, in a hectic business environment, for hazards to crop up unnoticed or be ignored by employees who are engaged in other tasks. It is the employer’s responsibility to impress the importance of safety on its workers. When they shirk this responsibility and allow laziness or indifference to cause a hazardous environment, they deserve to pay for the resulting injuries and suffering that results. If you’ve fallen on a hazard that shouldn’t have been there, talk to an attorney about getting the compensation you are due.