These cases are more commonly referred to as slip and fall cases. Liability may be difficult to prove in some of these cases.
In the context of a premises liability action, the duty owed by an owner or possessor of land is measured by general negligence principles and not by the status of the injured person as a trespasser, licensee, or invitee. Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 108. An owner or possessor of premises is under a duty to others by virtue of that possession or ownership to act reasonably to keep the premises safe and prevent persons from being injured. Williams v. Foster (1989) 216 Cal. App. 3d 510. A property owner automatically has a duty to keep the property safe, but how do you prove if he did not do so?
Elements of a Case
This essentially boils the case down to a basic case negligence. As such the injured person must establish the following:
1. The existence of a duty on the part of the defendant to use due care;
2. A breach of this legal duty; and
3. The breach as the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury. United States Liability Ins. Co. v. Haidinger-Hayes, Inc. (1970) 1 Cal 3d 586.
The determination of whether a property owner owes a duty toward an injured person requires an inquiry as to whether or not the owner has acted as a reasonable person in view of the probability of injury to others. Salinas v. Martin (2008) 166 Cal. App. 4th 404.
Generally, the most difficult part of these claims are whether or nota duty was owed to the injured party. This is what many attorneys refer to as the notice requirement in these cases. The party making the claim of injury has the burden to prove the owner had actual or constructive notice in order to remedy the situation. However, a recent California Supreme Court slip and fall case held that the plaintiff need not show actual knowledge to the Defendant where evidence suggests that the condition was present for a sufficient period of time to charge the owner with constructive knowledge of its existence. See Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal. 4th 1200.
The Court held that the notice/duty requirement may be shown by circumstantial evidence which proves that a dangerous condition existed for an unreasonable time. Id.
What is the evidence needed?
For example, in a case where it has been raining, and a weather report illustrates that there had been rain for three days prior to the incident, a landlords failure to place mats outside on the slick ground may meet the above criteria as stated by the California Supreme Court.
However, each accident must be viewed in light of its own unique circumstances. Louie v. Hagstrom's Food Stores (2001) 81 Cal.App.2d 601, 608. An owner must inspect the premises or take other proper action to learn its condition, and if, by the exercise of reasonable care, the owner would have discovered the condition, he is liable for failing to correct it. Id. at p. 606.
It may be as simple if it rains outside was a mat down near the entrance to the store. Gather the documentary evidence you need and consult with a personl injury attorney.
Our Rating is calculated using information the lawyer has included on their profile in addition to the information we collect from state bar associations and other organizations that license legal professionals. Attorneys who claim their profiles and provide Avvo with more information tend to have a higher rating than those who do not.
What determines Avvo Rating?Experience & background
Years licensed, work experience, education
Legal community recognition
Peer endorsements, associations, awards
Legal thought leadership
Publications, speaking engagements
This lawyer was disciplined by a state licensing authority in .
Disciplinary information may not be comprehensive, or updated. We recommend that you always check a lawyer's disciplinary status with their respective state bar association before hiring them.