Actions That Help Plaintiff In Slip And Fall Case

The plaintiff must show the property owner’s liability for damages. That means offering proof of the owner’s awareness, concerning the existence of an unsafe condition.

Questions for which the plaintiff should seek answers:

• Who appears to be the liable party?
• Did the same party cause, or fail to prevent, occurrence of the slip and fall incident?
• Would a reasonable person have identified that particular condition or danger?
• Did the property owner’s actions aid creation of a dangerous condition?

The plaintiff must prove one of the following:

There was no reasonable explanation for the existence of a hazard at the site of the slip and fall incident. Personal injury lawyer in Vaughan knows that the danger that existed at that particular location could have been altered, so that it would become less of a threat.

Why it would be hard to prove the existence of either condition on a piece of government property

Sometimes a crew that is working for the government creates a dangerous spot, while working on a construction project, such as making improvements on a roadway. Hence, there would be a reasonable explanation of the hazard’s existence.

The government is quick to install a warning marker at a dangerous location. Anyone that was injured prior to erection of that marker would find it difficult to convince a judge or jury that there was no marker. Instead, the judge or jury would be apt to suspect that the plaintiff had failed to notice the necessary warning sign.

In most cases, a plaintiff would struggle to show that the government had allowed a condition to exist for a prolonged amount of time. Sometimes, though, a lack of funding does delay completion of the actions that could ensure erection of a warning.

Factors that could weaken the plaintiff’s case

Evidence that the dangerous condition had developed only recently, so that the property owner had not had an adequate amount of time for fixing it.

Proof that the property owner had made a point of arranging for inspections, with a goal towards discovery of any dangerous spots.

Proof that the property owner had put up a warning sign, so that members of the public would avoid venturing onto the dangerous area.

Plaintiff’s failure to save the footwear that he/she had been wearing on the day of the falling incident

—That pair should not look too worn, or that would weaken an argument about its sturdy nature.
—It should not look too new, because it is common knowledge that it takes time to get used to a new pair of shoes.

Statement from a witness, saying that the plaintiff had been distracted by something in the surroundings, during the moments that preceded the accident

More to explorer