People who suffer harm in slip and fall accidents that occur in grocery stores have the right to seek damages from the party that owns the store. Generally, though, proof that a dangerous condition caused a person to fall, in and of itself, is insufficient to warrant the imposition of liability. Instead, a plaintiff in a premises liability case must demonstrate that the defendant knew or should have known that the condition existed prior to the fall. The evidence a plaintiff must produce in a slip and fall case was the topic of an opinion recently issued by a Florida court, in a case in which it ultimately dismissed the plaintiff’s claims. If you were hurt in a fall, you could be owed compensation, and it is smart to seek the counsel of a practiced Florida premises liability lawyer to evaluate what claims you might be able to pursue.
The Plaintiff’s Fall
Allegedly, the plaintiff was shopping in the defendant’s grocery store when she slipped and fell on a transient substance. During her deposition, she testified that she did not see the substance before she fell and did not know how the liquid got on the floor or how long it had been there. She also did not know whether any store employee knew of the substance prior to her fall. She did not know where the substance came from but speculated it might be from a grape.
It is reported that the defendant moved to have the plaintiff’s claims dismissed via summary judgment on the grounds that she failed to show that the defendant knew or reasonably should have known of the presence of the liquid prior to her fall. After considering the evidence produced by both parties, the court granted the motion. Continue reading ›