The owner of the property where a slip and fall accident occurs— which could be a business, homeowner, landlord, government agency or other —may be legally responsible for the accident if:
- He or she caused the unsafe condition.
- He or she knew about the dangerous condition (“actual knowledge”) but did not address it.
- He or she should reasonably have known about the unsafe condition (“constructive knowledge”) and taken steps to address it.
Showing that a property owner had notice (actual or constructive knowledge) of the hazardous condition is a critical factor in establishing liability. Satisfying this requirement depends, in part, on identifying the hazard as temporary or permanent.
In the case of a permanent hazard, it is often (but not always) simpler to show that a property owner had notice of the hazard. Temporary hazards, on the other hand, tend to be less straightforward. Some examples should help to clarify the issue of property owner liability in the context of permanent and temporary hazards.
Permanent Hazards Vs. Temporary Hazards
Neither “permanent” nor “temporary” has absolute meaning in slip and fall cases. Both terms are relative and closely connected to a party’s ability to know about and react to a given hazard.
Consider a store where two different materials, such as linoleum and tile, meet, creating a difference in height that is a trip hazard. Because it is a built-in feature of the store, this is clearly a permanent hazard. A reasonable owner should be aware of this hazard and take measures to correct it.
Owners can be expected to know about and fix unsafe conditions such as broken stairs, cracked concrete or poor lighting in a corridor. These hazards are “permanent” in that they persist as long as nothing is done about them. But what if the hazard is created just moments before an accident?
For instance, the delivery of a heavy item could result in a broken stair. If the delivery company doesn’t inform the owner about the damage, and somebody uses the stairs and falls down a few moments later, should the owner reasonably be expected to know about the hazard?
The same issue of notice comes into play for temporary hazards. The classic example of a temporary hazard is a slick supermarket floor caused by spilled liquid. If the spill occurred moments before somebody slipped and fell on it, arguing that proper steps to remedy the hazard weren’t taken would be challenging. But if the liquid remained for a period of time, a strong argument could be made that there was sufficient notice of the hazardous condition.
A property owner and others can be legally responsible for falls caused by permanent or temporary hazards. The key in each case is establishing that the owner had actual or constructive notice of the hazard.
Proof of actual notice can take many forms, such as work orders for repairs and evidence of prior complaints about the hazard. Establishing constructive notice, because it hinges on the concept of what a reasonable person should have known, typically relies on issues such as the type of hazard involved, the length of time it existed and its location on the property.
Discuss Your Case For Free With A Lawyer
An experienced NYC slip and fall accident lawyer gives you the best chance of obtaining compensation for your injuries. David Resnick & Associates, P.C., have obtained a number of favorable verdicts and settlements on behalf of slip and fall victims. To learn how we can help you, contact us now for a free case review.