Premises liability refers to
personal injury claims asserted against a defendant who owns,
possesses, or controls the premises when an injury occurs. Slip and
falls in markets, restaurants, office or apartment buildings are
classic examples of premises liability lawsuits.
The key issues in personal injury slip and fall cases are
whether the owner or possessor had notice of the injury causing
condition and whether appropriate steps were taken to protect those
persons who are reasonably expected to be on the premises, including
properly warning them.
The first key issue is to show that the owner or possessor
had notice of the condition through actual or construction notice
[knowledge]. How do we show actual notice? If, for example, a shopper
in a Department store slips on wet floors in the mens’ restroom which
had been recently mopped by the janitorial crew, the store is deemed to
have had actual notice of the condition because its employees created
the condition.
However, defendants rarely admit to having been aware of a
dangerous condition on their premises. Hence, more commonly, we have to
show that the owner or possessor had constructive notice of the
condition. “Constructive notice" means that the condition was present
for a sufficient period of time so that the defendant owner or
possessor would have been aware of it if they had conducted a
reasonable inspection of the premises. There is no hard and fast rule
and every case is decided on its own facts.
For example, a drink spills in a Supermarket aisle on
mid-day Sunday (the busiest time of the week for the market) and goes
undiscovered for 30 minutes. In a personal injury action against the
Supermarket, a jury could find that the Supermarket had constructive
notice of the spill because it was present for a sufficient period of
time so that it would have been discovered if the Supermarket had
inspected its premises. However, if the same spill occurs on late-night
Wednesday (slowest time of the week) and left undetected for 30
minutes, a jury might find that a sufficient period of time had not
lapsed for the store to have detected the spill. Why would a jury rule
differently in these two personal injury actions? In the first
scenario, the jury may find that because of the increased number of
shoppers, there was a greater likelihood that a spill could occur and
hence, the Supermarket should have inspected its premises earlier, and
if it had, it would have discovered the spill.
The second key issue is to show that you were injured
because appropriate steps were not taken to protect you, a person who
was reasonably expected to be on the premises. For example, the
restroom was not closed when the floors were wet, or the area of the
spill was not cordoned off, or that the warning was not sufficient
enough to place you on notice that the area posed a danger and that you
should stay away. As with the first issue, each case is decided on its
own facts.
Because of the key issues discussed above, it becomes
imperative that you proceed with an experienced lawyer in premises
liability and slip and fall actions. This article strictly talks about
California law. Laws in other states may differ. This article is for
educational purposes only and is not meant to serve as legal advice.
You should always contact an attorney to discuss any legal matter.
Mason Rashtian The Mason Law Firm 27240 Turnberry Lane, Suite 200 Valencia, CA 91355 Telephone: (866) 696-7770 E-mail: mr.law@scvlawcenter.com www.scvlawcenter.com
Disclaimer: All information on this site is provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any
information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice provided to you by any health care or other professional
or organization.
