One could occasionally slip, fall and get injured when an obvious hazard is not there on the floor. In other words, the slip and fall injury can happen even when a room’s lower surface is spotless and dry. Generally, those who have that kind of injury claim that the surface was polished to a dangerous level, so it was dangerous to set foot on it. Today’s cleaning solutions have high friction coefficients when correctly put to the flooring, so somebody might slip and fall. For example, let us look at an actual lawsuit involving this danger.
The injured female was at a big supermarket with her friend for shopping when the former slipped, fell and got hurt when walking to a shop display. Just before the accident, the person saw no dangerous thing on the surface and she had no clue how it was like to walk there. Still, following the fall, she noticed briefly that the surface was very sparkly and appeared machine-polished only a while ago. Nobody else was there to testify anything associated with the flooring’s look or state or the existence of dangerous materials.
The supermarket kept a log of sweeping, and a legally qualified witness’s testimony suggested the surface was cleaned and checked just a while before the fall. The victim submitted a California slip and fall lawsuit on the basis of negligent floor maintenance. To substantiate the presence of imminent danger on the floor, the hurt person claimed that it appeared highly polished. After the defendant’s attorney responded to her claim, some finding was released, and the professional submitted a motion for summary judgment.
For an uninitiated, a motion for summary judgment refers to the defendant’s request to the court that the lawsuit or claims in it be considered in their favor. In other words, it means that the defendant is requesting the case be dismissed on the basis of some things.
In the aforementioned lawsuit, California’s judge and appeals court approved the defendant’s request because the plaintiff did not prove the danger. The court gave a favorable verdict to the defendant also because the latter’s workers testified to have not seen the floor appear slippery and found navigating it to be not difficult. The key here is evidence: the plaintiff lacked it to prove that the defendant had enough time to do anything to remove the imminent hazard.
If you want to build a case and bring the guilty party to justice, feel free to contact Davidovich Law group for a consultation regarding this.