Establishing Negligence in Charleston Slip and Fall Cases

Evidence is crucial to establishing negligence and liability in Charleston slip and fall cases. It shows that the negligent party either knew or should have known that the hazard was there or created the hazard. Eyewitness testimony can be helpful in that regard and especially the testimony of the plaintiff, oftentimes some inculpatory statements are made and that means some statements are made by store employees at the time that might give rise to the liability.

If the employee meant to clean something up but forgot to do so. Physical evidence is helpful, including photographs of the scene, in order to establish liability in the slip and fall case in Charleston. For more information on useful details of a slip and fall injury case, contact a distinguished slip and fall attorney who can help you file your claim. In a slip and fall case, the responsible party is adversely always the owner of the property in which the plaintiff slip and fell and got injured and that is without exception.

Common Defendants

There are not any common defendants, with the exception of grocery stores. Grocery stores tend to have more slip and fall cases than other types of establishments and for a number of reasons, the products they sell can oftentimes spill or otherwise create a hazard in the store itself but there really is no typical slip and fall defendant other than lawyers who tend to look for a commercial defendant because the rules are different when talking about a private individual as a defendant as opposed to a commercial operation.

Proof of a Hazardous Scenario

In order to make a recovery in a slip and fall case, the person has to prove that there was a hazard, which can be liquid on the floor, weak floorboards, and it could be a merchandise overhead that is improperly stacked but the person has to prove first of all that there was a hazard. When establishing negligence in Charleston slip and fall cases, the person would have to prove that the other party either knew or should have known that there was a hazard there and either failed to fix the hazard or failed to warn of the hazard. There is an exception to that rule, a plaintiff does not have to prove that the store owner knew or should have known about the hazard if the person can prove that the store owner created the hazard.

Examples of Breach of Duty

A store owner’s duty is to take reasonable steps to make sure that their premises are safe for the public to use. A customer of a store is referred to as an invitee and that is the highest duty of care that any property owner can owe to another person because, in the case of a business, the plaintiff or injured person is there to confer a benefit to the store owner to spend money in a store. The law imposes a much higher duty on a store owner with respect to an invitee, someone there to spend money.

A private landowner who is going over to visit someone’s house for dinner, and it is a lower duty of care but with respect to proving that the breach of the duty is what led to the accident and that question goes to causation and there are two levels of test for causation.

There is a factual causation and then there is legal causation and in a slip and fall case. The store owner has to present evidence that there was a hazard in the first place and then after that, the person has to present evidence that the store either knew or should have known that a hazard existed. They have to prove that the store owner failed to either remove the hazard or to warn of the hazard. This would be considered establishing liability in Charleston slip and fall cases. However, if a person has evidence to prove that the store owner created the hazard, in that instance, the plaintiff does not have to prove that they knew or should have known about a hazard that they just flat-out created themselves.

Free consultation