Defenses in Slip and Fall Lawsuits under Personal Injury
Defenses in Slip and Fall Lawsuits Under Personal Injury Law
Slip and fall cases arise when a person is injured due to slipping, tripping, or falling on someone else’s property. The injured party (plaintiff) usually claims negligence against the property owner or occupier. However, the defendant can raise several defenses to avoid or reduce liability.
1. Lack of Duty or Breach of Duty
Explanation:
The plaintiff must prove that the property owner owed them a duty of care and breached that duty. The owner might argue they did not owe a duty to the plaintiff in that specific situation or that the duty was not breached.
Case Law:
Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal.2d 108 (1968)
This case established that property owners owe a general duty of reasonable care to all lawful visitors. However, if the owner can show they acted reasonably, they might not be liable.
2. No Notice of Hazard
Explanation:
The property owner can argue that they did not know and had no reasonable way to know about the dangerous condition. Liability typically requires actual or constructive notice.
Case Law:
Daley v. La Croix, 196 Minn. 27, 264 N.W. 35 (1936)
The court held that without notice or sufficient time to remedy the hazard, the defendant is not liable.
3. Open and Obvious Danger
Explanation:
If the hazard was open and obvious, the owner may not be liable because a reasonable person would have noticed and avoided the danger.
Case Law:
Calles v. Scripps Health, 224 Cal. App. 4th 1210 (2014)
The court ruled that no duty was owed to protect the plaintiff from an open and obvious danger.
4. Comparative or Contributory Negligence
Explanation:
The defendant may argue that the plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to the accident. Depending on jurisdiction, this may reduce or bar recovery.
Comparative Negligence: The plaintiff’s damages are reduced in proportion to their fault.
Contributory Negligence: Any fault by the plaintiff completely bars recovery.
Case Law:
Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal.3d 804 (1975)
Established pure comparative negligence in California, allowing damages to be apportioned.
Butterfield v. Forrester, 11 East 60 (1846)
Classic case applying contributory negligence to bar plaintiff recovery.
5. Intervening Cause
Explanation:
If an unforeseeable event caused the injury after the plaintiff encountered the hazard, the defendant may not be liable.
Case Law:
Marshall v. Nugent, 240 Ill. App. 3d 358 (1992)
The court held that an intervening act by a third party can break the chain of causation.
6. Assumption of Risk
Explanation:
If the plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily assumed the risk of harm from a dangerous condition, the defendant might not be liable.
Case Law:
Murphy v. Steeplechase Amusement Co., 250 N.Y. 479 (1929)
Known as the “Flopper” case, where the plaintiff assumed risk in a dangerous amusement ride.
7. Failure to Mitigate Damages
Explanation:
After the injury, the plaintiff has a duty to take reasonable steps to reduce their damages. Failure to do so may reduce compensation.
Summary Table
| Defense | Description | Case Example |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of Duty or Breach | No duty owed or no breach of reasonable care | Rowland v. Christian |
| No Notice of Hazard | Owner had no actual or constructive notice of danger | Daley v. La Croix |
| Open and Obvious Danger | Hazard was apparent, so no duty to warn or fix | Calles v. Scripps Health |
| Comparative/Contributory | Plaintiff partly or fully responsible | Li v. Yellow Cab Co. / Butterfield v. Forrester |
| Intervening Cause | Unforeseeable event caused injury | Marshall v. Nugent |
| Assumption of Risk | Plaintiff knowingly accepted the danger | Murphy v. Steeplechase Amusement Co. |
| Failure to Mitigate | Plaintiff did not minimize their damages | - |
RELATED Blog
0 comments