You’re in a store when you suffer a head injury in a slip-and-fall accident. It’s a tile floor, so you hit the back of your head when you fall. This lands you in the hospital, where doctors want to check for significant symptoms like bleeding around the brain.
The cost of medical care is very high, so you decide that you’re going to sue the store owner for creating a dangerous condition that led to your fall. The store owner doesn’t deny that the building was dangerous, but they say that they’re not responsible because they didn’t know about the risks in the first place. They were completely unaware of the dangerous condition, so they weren’t acting negligently. Does this mean they won’t be liable?
How long did the condition exist?
They certainly could still be liable, even if they’re telling the truth when saying that they didn’t know about the dangerous condition. If they should have known, the court could still rule in your favor and order that they pay you compensation.
One of the most important details to consider in a case like this is how long the condition existed. If it was brand new—say that another customer dropped a jar of liquid on the floor just a few minutes before your slip-and-fall accident—then the store owner may claim there was nothing they could do in time.
But if it was a long-standing condition, such as a pipe that had been leaking for the last week, then the store owner may still have acted negligently by not taking the proper steps to inspect their store and ensure that it was safe. They should have known about the slippery floors and should have done more to prevent your injuries.
Seeking compensation
These types of cases often lead to disputes and can get very complex. You need to know about all of your legal options as you seek financial compensation.