User:Jmb879/Slip and fall

Overview
A slip and fall generally refers to a premises liability lawsuit in which a person alleges that they were injured after slipping and falling due to a dangerous condition (water, ice, debris, etc.) on another person's property. As tort claim based on negligence, the precise elements required to establish a slip and fall case may vary between jurisdictions.

As a general rule, a property owner has a duty to exercise reasonable care in keeping their property safe for people who are invited onto that property. This duty requires reasonable care in the construction and use of the premises. This duty also requires a property owner to conduct inspections of the premises and to address hazardous conditions upon discovery. For example, the duty of reasonable care might require a grocery store to regularly inspect aisles for spilled liquids and to either warn customers or promptly remove any spilled liquids that are found.

In most jurisdictions, there are generally four elements in a slip and fall case. First, the plaintiff must prove that the owner or operator of a property had either actual or constructive knowledge of a hazardous condition on the property. Second, the plaintiff must demonstrate that this condition created an unreasonable risk of harm. Third, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the owner or operator of the property did not exercise reasonable care in reducing or eliminating the risk of harm. Fourth, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the owner or operator's failure to exercise reasonable care was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries.

In some jurisdictions, a plaintiff must only demonstrate that they were injured after slipping and falling due to an unsafe condition on the floor of a defendant's property. Once the plaintiff has done this, courts in such jurisdictions will presume that the owner or operator of the property was negligent in permitting the unsafe condition to exist, and the burden will shift to the defendant to prove that they did not have actual or constructive notice of the condition. In either type of jurisdiction, the owner or operator of a property will generally not be held liable if they can show that they have taken all precautions reasonably necessary to protect an invitee or customer from injury, or if they can demonstrate that they did not have actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition.

Many jurisdictions also have statutes that may impact a plaintiff's ability to seek and recover damages in a slip and fall case. For example, most jurisdictions have adopted a statute of limitations that prohibits a plaintiff from seeking damages in all tort claims after a certain amount of time has passed since the alleged incident. Some jurisdictions have also adopted comparative negligence statutes, which limit a plaintiff's damages in proportion to the degree that their own negligence contributed to the injury.

New York
In O'Callaghan v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division ruled in favor of the defendant because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the defendant had either actual or constructive notice of a hazardous condition in the defendant's store. The court states that, in order to establish a slip and fall claim in New York, the plaintiff must either prove that that the defendant created the hazardous condition, that the defendant had actual notice of the condition, or that the defendant had constructive notice of the condition. A store owner would have constructive notice if the hazardous condition is visible and apparent for a sufficient time prior to the accident that the store's employees could discover the hazard and address it.

New Jersey
In Knight v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, ruled in favor of a store owner where the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the store employees had constructive notice of a spilled liquid near a self-service refrigerator. The court discusses the "mode of operation" doctrine, which applies when a hazardous condition is likely to occur due to the nature of a defendant's business, the condition of the property, or a demonstrable pattern of conduct or incidents. Under the "mode of operation" doctrine, if a defendant's business involves s "self-service mode of operation" and allows customers to freely gather goods from shelves or refrigerators, then that defendant is presumed to have constructive notice of potentially hazardous conditions and the defendant will have the burden of proving reasonable precaution or lack of notice.

Pennsylvania
In Estate of Swift v. Northeastern Hospital of Philadelphia, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania ruled in favor of the defendant-hospital where the plaintiff claimed that they were injured after slipping and falling due to water on the hospital floor. The court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate how the water arrived on the floor or how long the hazardous condition existed. As result, the court ruled in favor of the hospital because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the defendant had either actual or constructive notice of the condition.

Ohio
In Johnson v. Wagner Provision Co., the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled in favor of the defendant where the plaintiff slipped and fell on mayonnaise that was spilled by another customer of the defendant's store. The court stated that, in order to succeed in a slip-and-fall claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant created the hazardous condition, that the defendant had actual knowledge of the hazardous condition, or that the hazardous condition existed long enough that the defendant should have known about it. However, the plaintiff in this case failed to sufficiently demonstrate any of these elements. As a result, the court ruled in favor of the defendant.

California
In Getchell v. Rogers Jewelry, the California Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the plaintiff where the plaintiff slipped and fell in a store while conducting repairs as an independent contractor. In contrast to most slip and fall cases, the plaintiff presented evidence that an employee of the defendant was responsible for creating the hazardous condition that caused the plaintiff's injury. As a result, the court found that the defendant had actual notice of the hazardous condition under the doctrine of respondeat superior because the defendant's employee was responsible for creating the hazard.

Texas
In Mohammadi v. Albertsons, LLC, the Court of Appeals of Texas ruled in favor of the plaintiff where the plaintiff slipped and fell in a grocery store. The plaintiff worked in a bank that was located within the grocery store and slipped while walking past the grocery store's shopping cart storage. The court found that the plaintiff was an "invitee" of the grocery store instead of a "licensee." An "invitee" may succeed in a slip and fall case by proving either actual notice or constructive notice, but a "licensee" must prove that the property owner had actual notice of a hazardous condition.