Virginia Slip and Fall Cases

You’ve just slipped on a puddle, tripped over a mat, or skidded on a sheet of ice.  Now what?  If you suffered injury from your fall, you may have a legal case.  Known as “slip and fall”, “negligence,” or “premises liability” cases, these types of suits can be difficult to try.

IMG_4451
If the injured plaintiff cannot prove a danger, defect & actual or constructive “notice”, then their Virginia premises liability cases may be dismissed by a defense motion for “Summary Judgment”

Burden of Proof

In the Commonwealth of Virginia, the injured plaintiff (i.e., the one doing the suing) has the burden to prove (1) that a dangerous condition existed; and (2) that the proprietor (the defendant) knew or should have known about the unsafe condition which caused the fall and had ample time to fix it, warn about it, or replace it.

Summary Judgement

The outcomes of several recent cases in Virginia highlight how difficult it can be for injured plaintiffs to prove their case.  In each of the following cases, the defendant asked for — and received — a summary judgement.  A summary judgement is used when the material facts in a case are not disputed.  By granting a summary judgement, a judge promptly and expeditiously dismisses the case without a trial.

Dillon v. Belk, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34839 (Roanoke 2013)

In this case, Ms. Dillon sued the Belk department store after she tripped over an unknown object in the store.  However, Dillon was “not sure” what she stepped on, and therefore could not show the duration or nature of the unsafe condition, nor that Belk had notice of it.  Belk’s motion for summary judgement was granted.

Anderson v. United States, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105884 (Newport News 2013) 

Ms. Anderson was employed as a salesperson at a kiosk on an Air Force base.  She was injured after slipping on a puddle in a restroom and filed a personal injury suit.  However, she could not establish when the puddle first appeared in the restroom and whether or not the defendant knew about it.  Motion for summary judgement was granted.

Hussain v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55364 (Alexandria 2013)

Mr. Hussain sued Costco for personal injuries after he slipped and fell on a spilled drink in the food court.  Another customer witnessed a child spill a drink only moments before the fall.  No one was seen attempting to clean up the spill or notify a Costco employee of the spill, and no employees were seen in the vicinity.  Costco’s request for summary judgement was granted since Mr. Hussain was unable to show Costco knew about the hazard.

Jones v. JC Penney Corp., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23339 (Lynchburg 2013)

Customer Jones slipped on a wet spot at a door entry at JC Penney.  Summary judgement was awarded to JC Penney because the plaintiff was unable to prove the store knew there was water on the tile floor at the store’s entrance.  This case was interesting because although the plaintiff said a store employee had commented about misplaced entryway mats and other falls in the store that day, the judge ruled this did not mean the store necessarily knew about the water that ultimately caused this particular fall.

Masoero v. Food Lion, LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39618 (Newport News 2013)

Ms. Masoero filed an injury complaint after she tripped over a rubber mat which she claims was dangerous because it had been folded over.  A summary judgement was awarded, however, because Ms. Masoero could not prove the mat was folded at the time of her fall (she did not look down) AND she could not prove any store employee had knowledge of the folded mat.

Maynard v. Sears. Roebuck & Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3256 (Norfolk 2014)

Mr. Maynard tripped over a “sport court” mat, was injured, and filed a claim against Sears.  He had no proof store employees knew about a dangerous condition caused by the sport court AND he could not show when or why a dangerous condition existed.  Adding to this, the court found him to be contributorily negligent, meaning he had a duty to watch where he was walking.  Since nothing was blocking his view of the mat, he bears some of the responsibility for the fall.  Therefore, Sears was granted summary judgement.

A Pattern in Slip and Fall Cases

Do you recognize a pattern in these cases?

Many lawyers in Virginia will not take slip and fall cases precisely because they are very difficult to bring to trial.  Dulles area fall injury lawyer Doug Landau and the team at Abrams Landau have experience with these cases and can advise you whether or not a case is worth pursuing.  If you or someone you know has been injured after a fall caused by an unsafe condition and there are questions as to what laws apply, email or call Abrams Landau, Ltd. at once (703-796-9555).