It is important to know that a property owner is not liable for every slip and fall which may occur on the premises. The property owner may have insurance that will automatically cover medical expenses, up to medical payment policy limits, for anyone injured on the premises, regardless of the cause or reason for the injury, with no questions asked; however, for a property owner to be liable for pain and suffering and other damages, you must prove that the property owner or possessor of the property was somehow negligent or at fault.

Falls generally occur because of a foreign substance on the floor or ground, causing a slip, such as produce on the floor of a grocery store, or an oily spot in a parking lot. The owner or possessor of the property can be liable if you can prove that the foreign substance was there for a sufficient time that it should have been cleaned up, or was there long enough that the owner knew or should have known about the problem, through reasonable inspections, to have cleaned it. It is a defense, however, if the person who fell was contributorily negligent, for example if the substance was so open and obvious that you should have seen it if you were paying proper attention.

Falls because of ice and/or snow are generally not legally actionable, since the law provides that an owner or possessor of land is not responsible for natural accumulations of ice and snow. Further, there is no duty to remove natural accumulations. However, an owner can be liable if there is an unnatural accumulation, or alteration, of ice and snow which causes a fall (e.g. melting snow is diverted to a walkway area which refreezes).

A municipality or other owner can also be liable for falls due to defects in a sidewalk, provided, again, the defect has existed long enough that it should have been known and taken care of. However, the owner is not liable for every defect. If the defect (cracked or raised surface) was small enough ("de minimus") the owner is not liable since it is not a guarantor that the sidewalk will be perfect, and the cost of curing every small defect would be prohibitive. On the other hand, the owner can also argue the defense that the defect was so great, so open and obvious, that the user was contributorily negligent and should have seen the defect and avoided it.

Contact my firm to discuss your case.