Skip to main content

My attorney withdrew from my slip & fall case from Wal-mart.

Rogers, AR |

I was told Arkansas has a 15 minute rule that I would have to prove the clear shampoo was on the floor for more than 15 minutes.

Attorney Answers 6


  1. I've not heard of a 15 minute rule. Maybe there's other issues.....

    This communication is not intended to, and does not, create an attorney-client relationship.


  2. Get a complete copy of your file and hire another lawyer.

    My responses to questions on Avvo are never intended as legal advice and must not be relied upon as legal advice. I give legal advice only in the course of an attorney-client relationship. Exchange of information through Avvo's Questions forum does not establish an attorney-client relationship with me. That relationship is established only by individual consultation and execution of a written agreement for legal services.


  3. Find another attorney. I presume this 15 minute rule is the amount of time a spill can be on a floor before a place like Wal-Mart becomes liable for injuries related to the spill.

    I have never heard of such a thing.

    Good luck!

    In no way am I offering you legal advice, and in no way has my comment created an attorney-client relationship. You are not to rely upon my note above in any way, but insted need to sit down with counsel and share all relevant facts before receiving fully-informed legal advice. If you want to be completely sure of your rights, you must sit down with an experienced criminal defense attorney to be fully aware of your rights.


  4. There is no such rule. Defendant has a duty to maintain the premisis in a reasonably safe condition.


  5. As the other attorney's have said, there is no "15 minute rule," but we would have to be able to convince a jury that Walmart either 1. caused the spill, or if they didn't cause it, 2. that they either knew about the spill for long enough to have cleaned it up, but didn't; 3. Reasonably should have known about it and didn't clean it up, or 4. knew about it but did not provide an adequate warning of the hazardous condition. Proving any of these can be a challenge, but isn't impossible. If you'd like to explore this with me: to.isaac@gmail.com. I'm sorry this happened ... good luck to you.


  6. If the business owner knows or should have known of a dangerous condition on the premises that he or she knew was possible or "foreseeable" or could present a danger to patrons, then he or she is said to have a duty to exercise ordinary care in either:

    1. removing the hazard; or
    2 at the very least, warning of the hazard

    The patron has an absolute right to assume that the business premises are reasonably safe unless there are obvious conditions or indications to the contrary of that assumption.

    The materials available at this web site are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Web site or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Howard Roitman, Esq. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney.

Real estate topics

Top tips from attorneys

What others are asking

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.

Ask a Question

- or -

Search for lawyers by reviews and ratings.

Find a Lawyer

Browse all legal topics