It's something many of us have experienced either first or second hand. We're climbing a flight of stairs or negotiating an ice-covered parking lot when we slip, fall and suffer a personal injury. Medical bills and related expenses are no laughing matter, so we often wonder if we have a viable legal claim against someone.
What it comes down to is there are a few factors that will tell you whether or not the defendants should be liable for your injury. Each law is different from one state to another, so you should consult a local lawyer and know your rights.
It all revolves around the responsibility (or duty). If you fall in a parking lot at some department store, should they cover your medical expenses? It's a complex question, but one that needs to be answered.
For instance, if you're getting out of your car at an apartment complex and you slip due to the ice, should they be held responsible? The truth is they might not be, especially in cold climate areas.
Then again, if you fall down the stairs inside their apartment building, it's a whole different story. Keep in mind that even though they may be liable in this case, it doesn't mean that they will be. The same goes for whether or not the ice should have been cleared in the parking lot.
Some questions of duty are more clear-cut. For falls involving spills, poor lighting, etc. it is usually obvious that the cause is negligence on the part of a property owner or an employee of same. In order to be legally liable for your slip, at least one of these conditions should be true.
* The condition responsible for the fall must have been caused by an establishment's owner or one of its employees.
* The owner or employees knew about the cause but did nothing to fix it.
* In some circumstances, it can be argued that the owner or employees *should* have known about the cause had they taken reasonable care of the property. This is usually determined via common sense, and by determining if the owner has made reasonable prior maintenance efforts.
It's kind of sad that the scenarios have to be this tricky, but the best way to overcome it is by looking into the practical questions.
* Could the problem been addressed long before the accident occurred?
* If the cause was an object, was there a good reason for the object to be located there? Could it have been realistically located elsewhere and not cause injury?
* Could a warning sign or barrier kept you from getting hurt?
It is also possible that your own negligence may have contributed more than did the property owner's. Here are a few questions to help determine this.
* Were you distracted at the time of your fall?
* Is the obstacle something a reasonable person would have avoided?
* Did you have a good reason for being at the location of the fall?
What it comes down to is there are a few factors that will tell you whether or not the defendants should be liable for your injury. Each law is different from one state to another, so you should consult a local lawyer and know your rights.
It all revolves around the responsibility (or duty). If you fall in a parking lot at some department store, should they cover your medical expenses? It's a complex question, but one that needs to be answered.
For instance, if you're getting out of your car at an apartment complex and you slip due to the ice, should they be held responsible? The truth is they might not be, especially in cold climate areas.
Then again, if you fall down the stairs inside their apartment building, it's a whole different story. Keep in mind that even though they may be liable in this case, it doesn't mean that they will be. The same goes for whether or not the ice should have been cleared in the parking lot.
Some questions of duty are more clear-cut. For falls involving spills, poor lighting, etc. it is usually obvious that the cause is negligence on the part of a property owner or an employee of same. In order to be legally liable for your slip, at least one of these conditions should be true.
* The condition responsible for the fall must have been caused by an establishment's owner or one of its employees.
* The owner or employees knew about the cause but did nothing to fix it.
* In some circumstances, it can be argued that the owner or employees *should* have known about the cause had they taken reasonable care of the property. This is usually determined via common sense, and by determining if the owner has made reasonable prior maintenance efforts.
It's kind of sad that the scenarios have to be this tricky, but the best way to overcome it is by looking into the practical questions.
* Could the problem been addressed long before the accident occurred?
* If the cause was an object, was there a good reason for the object to be located there? Could it have been realistically located elsewhere and not cause injury?
* Could a warning sign or barrier kept you from getting hurt?
It is also possible that your own negligence may have contributed more than did the property owner's. Here are a few questions to help determine this.
* Were you distracted at the time of your fall?
* Is the obstacle something a reasonable person would have avoided?
* Did you have a good reason for being at the location of the fall?
About the Author:
Injury attorney Rex Bush has successfully handled over 1014 cases, his largest settlement to date is 3.25 million dollars. Visit his Utah Injury Attorney website.
