Articles Posted in Slip and Fall

Published on:

Over the holidays, our South Florida injury lawyers field many calls those hurt in a slip-and-fall accident. It is not always possible to avoid a slip during holidays because so many potential hazards abound. Our hope is that by highlighting them here, we can raise awareness and help people avoid a fall or at least some of the most serious outcomes.

Of course, slip-and-fall accidents can happen at almost any time. However, many suffer a slip during holidays because often their guard is down. Folks are understandably distracted, walking to and from stores, in parking lots, carrying packages, wrangling small children, attending parties and decorating. When a slip during holidays occurs at your own home, there may be little you can do to obtain compensate – unless the fall was owing to a defective ladder or other defective product. However, when you are a guest in someone else’s home or at a hotel or as a customer in a store, you are owed a duty of care by the property owner to make sure you are not put at unreasonable risk of injury due to unforeseen and non-obvious dangers.

From the perspective of a South Florida injury lawyer, it’s important to point out that the fact that you fell isn’t grounds in and of itself to collect damages. Florida slip-and-fall law is codified in F.S. 768.0755. It stipulates that if a person falls on a transitory foreign substance on the floor of a business establishment, that person must prove the business had either actual or constructive knowledge of the condition – and failed to take action to remedy it. Actual knowledge would mean employees knew about that specific hazard. Constructive knowledge means either that the slippery floor either existed for such a length of time that the business should have discovered in the course of using ordinary care OR that it occurred with some regulatory and thus was foreseeable.  Continue reading →

Published on:

Responsibility for sidewalk maintenance depends on where the walkways is located and what the state and municipal ordinances say about who is responsible. Sometimes it can be private property owners located adjacent to the walk or homeowners associations or businesses on which the walkway exists. On public sidewalks, though, responsibility for maintenance usually rests with the county, city or town government. 

If you suffer injury in an Orlando sidewalk trip-and-fall, your claim is likely to be against the City of Orlando, which is responsible for sidewalk grinding of sections that have become lifted, cracked or uneven. Although old English common law established the idea of governmental “sovereign immunity” from torts, F.S. 768.28 outlines the state’s waiver of sovereign immunity in tort actions, allowing it to be treated just like any other negligent party or vicariously liable employer. However, there are a number of exceptions, which is why it’s so important to work with an Orlando injury attorney with a track record of success in cases against government agencies. Ask for specific examples when you’re deciding which attorney to hire.

One of the exceptions outlined in the statute involves something called discretionary function immunity (the opposite of which is ministerial function, for which governments can be held liable). These are technical and complex legal concepts, but the easiest explanation is that ministerial duty applies to a public employee’s official duty, without room for the worker to exercise any discretion. On the other hand, discretionary function is that which involves a function of one’s public employee job that requires the individual to exercise some degree of judgment in carrying out the task.  Continue reading →

Published on:

Florida slip-and-fall injury lawsuits are among the trickiest in which to prevail, thanks to a high proof burden standard in this (and many other states) requiring evidence the business had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition that caused the plaintiff to slip. 

This is not to say they aren’t worth pursuing. Many slip-and-fall claims in Florida are actionable, and it’s especially important in cases where serious injury resulted to at least explore the viability of a claim. That’s because these incidents can result in serious and lasting injuries, depending on the floor material, how hard the person fell, at what angle they fell and how fragile their body was to begin with. Some of the most common injuries we see in Orlando grocery store slip-and-fall cases include: Head injuries (including traumatic brain injuries), hip fractures, back and spinal cord injuries, shoulder injuries, sprains and fractures (particularly of wrists and ankles).

However, in contested claims (where the insurer refuses to make a payment), before a court can consider the severity of your injuries and what you might be owed, there first must be a decision about whether the defendant business owner/ manager is negligent. Having an experienced injury lawyer on your case as soon as possible is imperative because certain critical evidence – which you might not even realize is important – could be lost forever if it’s not promptly preserved. For example, if you don’t know what you slipped on or how long it was there, you will have a very tough time prevailing in a slip-and-fall case. But it’s possible certain evidence – such as security surveillance footage – may offer key information that can help answer these questions – and save your case. However, if your attorney doesn’t request that it be preserved, it might be deleted by the store (common practice for many businesses with such cameras).  Continue reading →

Published on:

A recent Florida slip-and-fall lawsuit ended in disappointment for the plaintiff after the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for defendant Costco on grounds the element of actual or constructive knowledge had not been established. 

Florida is somewhat unique in this requirement, since the legislature in 2010 introduced F.S. 768.0755. Generally, dangerous conditions on a property subject the owner/ controller of that property to premises liability claims if someone is hurt on site. Plaintiffs in all cases need to show negligence, which involves proof that defendant owed a duty of care to plaintiff, defendant breached that duty, the breach caused plaintiff’s injury and plaintiff’s injury resulted in monetary damages. Slip-and-fall lawsuits are a unique subcategory of premises liability claims in that they require evidence the property owner either knew about the dangerous condition or should have known about it and failed to act on it.

To prove actual knowledge, plaintiff must show defendant either created the condition or was expressly made aware of it. Most slip-and-fall lawsuits in Florida, however, are proven with evidence of constructive knowledge. This can be shown in one of two ways, per the statute: The condition existed for a long enough period of time that property owner should have discovered in the exercise of ordinary care or secondly that the condition occurred with regularity and was thus foreseeable. This provision applies only to cases that involve a business establishment wherein an invitee slipped and fell on a “transitory foreign substance,” meaning something that isn’t supposed to be present on the floor and the invitee wouldn’t expect to encounter it.  Continue reading →

Published on:

The state supreme court in Idaho reversed a summary judgment granted in favor of a large retailer stemming from a slip-and-fall injury allegedly caused by a spill near a self-service carpet-cleaning machine rental station in the store. Justices ruled the trial court’s finding that the vendor might be liable for negligence – but not the retailer/ property owner – was improper, and that the injury lawsuit should be allowed to proceed to trial

The store had a vendor agreement with the company that owned the carpet cleaning machines for two years by the time of the fall. The vendor had similar agreements with several other companies, but this was the only one wherein these kiosks were completely self-serving (as opposed to having a store employee check customers out). The vendor did not train employees of this store in proper storage and maintenance, as it did at every other location. The machines instead were serviced by the vendor twice a month.

The store had a general slip-and-fall policy that was in place at the time plaintiff fell. The policy mandates employees keep an eye out for safety issues in the spaces where they work. Store workers were specifically told to conduct “safety sweeps” of areas that got a lot of foot traffic, to specifically watch for spills and to clean them up promptly whenever they were discovered. Continue reading →

Published on:

A critical element of any Florida slip-and-fall injury lawsuit is establishing actual or constructive knowledge.

Florida’s slip-and-fall statute, F.S. 768.0755, requires that if a person slips and suffers injury in the fall on a transitory foreign substance in a business establishment, that person must first prove the business had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard and therefore had a duty to actively remedy it. Actual knowledge could be shown if the business created the condition or if a staffer or manager was informed directly of the floor’s condition at that time and location. Constructive knowledge is a bit trickier. It is shown by proving the condition existed for such a length of time that the business establishment should have learned of it in the exercise of ordinary care OR that the condition occurred with regularity and was thus foreseeable.

Indiana has a similar proof burden requirement in these premises liability cases, and this issue arose in a recent case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh CircuitContinue reading →

Published on:

Restaurants are a common site of trips, slips and falls, especially during the busy holiday season. The National Restaurant Association recommends all restaurants regularly monitor the coefficient of friction at various surfaces, replace worn or fraying carpets or mats, repair uneven surfaces on walkways, use non-slip matting in the kitchens or other areas that tend to be wet, wax carefully, keep pathways clear and promptly clean up reported or discovered spills. All of these practices will help reduce Florida slip-and-fall injuries. 

Recently, the Mississippi Supreme Court considered a restaurant trip-and-fall case involving an elderly customer and an allegedly errant high chair, one leg protruding into the customer’s pathway, resulting in a fall that caused serious injuries to his face and shoulder.

According to court records, the incident occurred five years ago at a fast-food restaurant in Mississippi while 76-year-old plaintiff was on a road trip with his family, returning to their home in Missouri. After plaintiff received his order, set his food down at a table and walked to the condiment station. He picked up several condiments, but then thought he heard one of the workers speaking to him. He turned to face the counter, but then discovered the employee was actually talking to a different customer. He turned to walk back to his table and as he did so, his left foot struck the leg of a high chair that was protruding into the aisle. Soon after, he reportedly overheard one of the employees ask a co-worker what the highchair had been doing in that location. A supervisor instructed someone to move it.  Continue reading →

Published on:

According to a recent news report from the Florida Record, a woman has just filed a lawsuit against a major big box retailer for an alleged slip-and-fall accident. The incident listed in the complaint is alleged to have occurred in at a store in Orlando, Florida. The store manager and the corporation were listed as defendants in this Orlando personal injury lawsuit.

Specifically, plaintiff alleges she slipped and fell while shopping at the store.  She further alleged she slipped on what she is calling a transitory foreign substance that was on the floor.  The basis for negligence is that store employees, and ultimately store management, failed to clean up the transitory substance in a timely manner or place warning placards on the floor, and this is what caused her accident. Continue reading →

Published on:

A slip-and-fall lawsuit plaintiff recently was handed a victory by the Alabama Supreme Court, which ruled the case should be remanded for trial because the defendant, in this case a restaurant, failed to prove the hazard in question was open and obvious.

Even though this is an out-of-state case, the open and obvious doctrine is a pretty universal one in most states when it comes to premises liability law and slip-and-fall cases in particular. The open and obvious defense is an exception to the duty of care owed by property owners which requires that they use reasonable care to shield or warn lawful visitors from dangerous conditions. If the danger is open and obvious, it is presumed the visitor will take reasonable care to avoid it and protect themselves. There is no duty to warn of a condition that is obvious.

In the recent slip-and-fall case out of Alabama, the court examined the details of an injury suffered by the patron of a fast-food restaurant, cast in the light most favorable to plaintiff, who was appealing an earlier summary judgment in favor of defendant.  Continue reading →

Published on:

The majority of slip-and-fall lawsuits in Florida are settled prior to trial. Many commercial premises liability policies provide millions in coverage, and sometimes companies want to just settle and move on. But of course, the dynamics are different with every case, and your slip-and-fall attorney needs to be prepared to take a case to trial if necessary. 

In a recent case before the Mississippi Supreme Court, plaintiff in a slip-and-fall case was actually seeking a second trial, after the first ended in a verdict favorable to defendant. The question for the court was whether the fact that a convicted felon served on that jury should prompt a second trial. Among the many rights felons lose upon conviction is the right to serve on a jury.

The trial court agreed that this alone was enough to warrant a a new trial. However, the state supreme court disagreed and reversed that order. Continue reading →

Contact Information