After getting injured in a building or store, you may worry that there is not enough proof to show the store owner was at fault for the accident.
In order to combat that, it is important to learn more about what possible arguments there are for slip and falls.
The most important test in any personal injury situation is whether or not a reasonable person would avoid the obstacle. If the item or surface was unavoidably dangerous, it would show that the owner was negligent in taking care of his or her property.
In addition, attractive nuisances are a common problem for younger children. The owner must fence these areas off or make them otherwise inaccessible for any child who may wander into a place.
Conditions for liability
If the property owner was not aware of the issue beforehand, it could weaken the argument against him or her. However, if he or she was aware of the potential for injury and chose to not fix whatever was dangerous, then it is a different matter.
If the store owner or another employee purposefully made the unsafe circumstance by leaving liquids on the ground or unfixed flooring, then they would be liable as well.
Previous knowledge of this problem is one way to prove there was negligence. There is another way, which involves the idea that any reasonable person would be aware of the dangerous situation due to general necessary upkeep of a place.
This lack of foresight as the owner of a building means the owner is liable for any injuries that occur. Although this may be harder to prove in a court of law, it is a defense for injuries that happen on someone else’s property.