Slip and fall accidents are common occurrences that can result in serious injuries. If you’re a victim of a slip and fall accident, you may be entitled to compensation for your injuries, medical bills, and other damages. However, the property owner or the insurance company may have some defenses to challenge your case. In this article, we’ll discuss some of the common defenses used in slip and fall accident cases.

Comparative Negligence

Comparative negligence is a defense often used in slip and fall accident cases. It suggests that the victim’s own negligence contributed to the accident. The property owner or the insurance company may argue that the victim should have been aware of the dangerous condition and taken steps to avoid it. For instance, if the victim was texting while walking and did not see a wet floor sign, the property owner might argue that the victim’s own negligence caused the accident.

In most states, comparative negligence laws allow victims to recover damages even if they were partially at fault for the accident. However, the amount of damages awarded would be reduced based on the victim’s percentage of fault. For example, if the victim was found to be 30% at fault, the damages awarded would be reduced by 30%.

Assumption of Risk

Assumption of risk is a defense where the property owner claims that the victim knew or should have known about the dangerous condition and accepted the risk of injury. For instance, if the victim knew that the floor was wet and slippery but continued to walk on it anyway, the property owner might argue that the victim assumed the risk of injury.

To use assumption of risk as a defense, the property owner must show that the victim had actual knowledge of the dangerous condition and voluntary assumed the risk. However, it’s not enough to simply post a warning sign. The property owner must prove that the victim understood the warning and still voluntarily assumed the risk.

Lack of Notice

Lack of notice is a defense where the property owner claims that they did not have notice of the dangerous condition, and therefore, could not have reasonably taken steps to prevent the accident. For instance, if a customer spills a drink on the floor and the accident occurs shortly after, the property owner might argue that they did not have a reasonable amount of time to clean the floor and prevent the accident.

To use lack of notice as a defense, the property owner must show that they did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition. Constructive knowledge means that the property owner should have known about the dangerous condition because it existed for a long enough time that a reasonable person would have discovered it and taken steps to fix it.

Open and Obvious

Open and obvious is a defense where the property owner claims that the dangerous condition was open and obvious, meaning that any reasonable person would have seen and recognized it as a potential hazard. For instance, if there’s a large hole in the ground and a person falls into it, the property owner might argue that the hole was open and obvious, and the victim should have seen it and avoided it.

To use the open and obvious defense, the property owner must show that the dangerous condition was so open and obvious that a reasonably careful person would have observed it in time to avoid the accident.

Conclusion

Slip and fall accidents can result in serious injuries, and it’s important to hold the responsible parties accountable for their negligence. However, property owners or insurance companies may have some defenses to challenge your case. If you’ve been injured in a slip-and-fall accident, it’s essential to contact a personal injury attorney who can help you understand your legal rights and options. With the right legal representation, you may be able to recover damages for your injuries and other losses.