Personal Injury - Slip and Fall - Landowner Liability

Many personal injury cases are of the slip and fall variety, these include slipping on wet spots inside a store, slipping and falling on ice on a sidewalk or tripping over other debris on property owned, operated or occupied by a business.  In most circumstances a person who sustained injuries as a result of one of these falls can recover from the landowner or storeowner.  As with all civil cases, however, the injured party has the burden of proving negligence on the part of the landowner.

The law places upon a landowner, a duty to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition or to warn any visitors of any dangerous condition on the premises.  It is important to understand that the mere presence of a slippery spot on floor does not in and of itself establish negligence.  Silcox v. Skaggs Alpha Beta, Inc., 814 P.2d 623, 624 (Utah Ct. App. 1991).  A business owner is charged with the duty to use reasonable care to maintain the floor of his establishment in a reasonably safe condition for his patrons.  Jex v. JRA, Inc., 2008 UT 67.   These dangerous conditions fall into two classes; those involving temporary conditions and those involving permanent conditions.  A temporary condition involves some unsafe condition of a temporary nature, such as a slippery substance on the floor and usually where it is not known how it got there.  See Allen v. Federated Dairy Farms, Inc., 538 P.2d 175, 176.  A permanent condition, obviously, involves some unsafe condition of a permanent nature, such as: in the structure of a building, or of a stairway, which was created or chosen by the landowner or his agent, or for which he is otherwise responsible.  A permanent condition could also involve a storeowner's method of operation which creates a situation where the reasonably foreseeable acts of a third party will create a dangerous condition. See Canfield v. Albertson's, Inc., 841 P.2d 1224, 1226 (Utah Ct. App. 1992).

Under a temporary unsafe condition theory, a plaintiff must show that; (1) the landowner had actual knowledge of the condition or should have known about the condition because it had existed long enough that it should have been discovered; and (2) after obtaining knowledge of the condition, sufficient time had elapsed that in the exercise of reasonable care he should have remedied the condition (it is also important to note that this requirement does not apply if the defendant or his agent or employees created the unsafe condition).

The most difficult obstacle for a plaintiff is establishing that a temporary condition existed long enough to give a store owner constructive knowledge of the condition.  The law requires a plaintiff to show that the condition existed for an "appreciable time."  See Ohlson v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 568 P.2d 753, 754 (Utah 1977).  A case often pointed to by the courts as an example of a showing of appreciable time is one in which there was spilled spaghetti in the aisles of a grocery store.  In that case, the plaintiff was successful in meeting this burden because the produced evidence that the spaghetti "was dirty, crushed, broken into small pieces, and extended from [one] aisle around the end of that aisle to the main aisle [of the store] for five or six feet toward the cash register at the front of the store.  See Ohlson at 754.

In contrast, the courts point to the case of Jex v. JRA, Inc., 2008 UT 67, 196 P.3d 156, as an example of a plaintiff who was unable to meet the appreciable time showing.  In that case slipped on a puddle of water in the store.  The plaintiff produced evidence that she was the first customer in the store that morning and the fourth person to walk into the store on the morning of the incident.  To prove that the defendant had adequate notice of the condition, the plaintiff relied on the fact that the defendant's employees had shoveled snow that morning and wore boots with deep treads, arguing that the employees had likely tracked the snow into the store.   The court, however, held that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence as to the amount of time the unsafe condition existed.  Jex at19.

As a result of the foregoing decisions, it is easy to see that the initial and most vital inquiry in such a case focuses on how long the hazard existed.  Therefore, the facts existing at the time of the fall are very important. If possible, it is very helpful to have photographs of the condition of the items that caused the fall and the premises in general.  It is important to note their position on the ground.  It is also important to gather witness statements from anyone who may have seen the fall or been in or on the premises immediately prior to the fall.  Another helpful item is to gather any inspection logs or reports kept by the landowner to indicate when the last time sweeping or any other cleaning was done.  All of these facts are important and will make or break a slip and fall case.  If you have any questions about this or any other laws concerning your slip and fall case, please give us a call at (435)753-4775 or visit us at http://www.ericsonshaw.com.