Who should bear responsibility for a slip and fall accident? Who helped to create the situation that worked to trigger such an accident?
Questions that jury must decide, based on presented evidence:
• Had the property owner aided occurrence of the slip and fall incident?
• Did carelessness on the owner’s part cause the slipping or tripping incident?
• Did the property owner know about the danger, but refuse to fix it?
• Would a reasonable person have taken certain steps, in order to prevent the occurrence of an accident?
• Had the point of danger, the one that caused the accident, been allowed to remain in that specific spot for an extended length of time?
Was there a legitimate reason for the fact that the dangerous element had been allowed to remain at that particular spot? For instance, if someone had tripped on a grate in the sidewalk, there would have been a legitimate reason for any failure to remove that same grate.
A jury might need to consider some additional questions. In an environment with long, cold winters, it might hear this question: How recently had it snowed, or how recently had the temperature dropped, allowing ice to form on an outdoor surface?
In an environment where tree leaves fell on the ground each autumn, it might hear this question: How recently had the owner taken the time to rake up any fallen leaves?
In an environment that supported lush growth, a jury might hear this question: How recently had the defendant tackled all the growth on that property?
How recently had the defendant’s efforts been focused on removal of some the unsightly growth on that specific strip of land?
If a visitor had slipped on some toy that had been left on porch steps, the jury might hear this question: How recently had the owner checked to see what objects any children might have left on the stairs that led to the porch?
In any of the situations mentioned above, the jury would show a diminishing desire to punish the property owner, if the owner’s corrective actions had been taken soon before the falling of the plaintiff. On the other hand, if the owner had delayed performance of such actions, the jury would be apt to make a different decision.
Any Personal Injury Lawyer in Barrie for the property owner could allege that the client’s actions had been less negligent than those of the plaintiff. If the jury were to agree with that pronouncement, then it might reduce that size of the plaintiff’s award. At the same time, the amount of money owed by the opposing party would decrease.