Georgia slip and fall attorney

Store Not Liable for Loose Dustpan That May Have Caused Customer’s Fall

November 16, 2018 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

There are two significant hurdles a plaintiff must clear when bringing a premises liability claim: First, there must be proof that a “hazard” existed on the defendant’s property that caused the plaintiff’s injury; and second, the plaintiff must show the defendant had “actual or constructive knowledge” of this hazard.

Green v. Big Lots Stores, Inc.

Here is a recent example in which a plaintiff managed to clear the first hurdle but not the second. This case, Green v. Big Lots Stores, Inc., involves a slip-and-all accident that occurred in August 2015. The plaintiff and his wife went to the defendant’s store to do their grocery shopping. They entered the store just as it was opening for the day. According to the plaintiff, he noticed a store manager “pushing a push broom in the aisles.”

Judge Allows Trip-and-Fall Victim to Proceed with Lawsuit Based on Presence of Clear Clothes Hanger

July 20, 2018 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

A key question in most premises liability cases is, “What constitutes a hazard?” After all, not every object that may obstruct a customer’s path is is necessarily dangerous. It is important to establish why a particular object constitutes a hazard–which leads the follow-up question of whether or not the management of the premises took reasonable steps to identify and correct that hazard.

Powell v. Variety Wholesalers, Inc.

Consider this ongoing federal lawsuit in Statesboro that centers on a clear plastic clothes hanger. One day in 2015, the plaintiff and her granddaughter went shopping at a department store owned by the defendant. The two women used one of the store’s changing rooms to try on clothes. As they exited the changing area, the plaintiff “slipped and fell” on the clear hanger, which according to her was “lying in the middle of the aisle.”

Avoiding Socially Awkward Situations May Constitute an “Assumption of Risk” in Slip and Fall Cases

May 25, 2018 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Even in Georgia, the winters are still prone to icy conditions. When walking through public parking lots and shopping centers in such conditions, you need to be aware of your surroundings, especially if you get into a slip and fall accident. If you subsequently attempt to hold the owner of the property liable for your injuries, the question of your “equal” or “superior” knowledge of any hazards may prove critical at trial.

Naval Store Suppliers, Inc. v. Croft

Recently, the Georgia Court of Appeals granted summary judgment to the defendants in a slip and fall case arising from an accident in the winter of 2014. On the day in question, it was approximately 25 degrees outside, and there was a noticeable water spigot located near the entrance of the defendant’s store. The spigot was open and the gushing water had formed a mixture of ice and water that clearly posed a hazard to anyone using the entrance.

When is a Georgia Store Owner Liable for a Rainy Day Slip-and-Fall Accident?

January 12, 2018 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Everyone understands that you need to be careful when walking in the rain. But just because it is raining outside, that does not automatically absolve store owners of their legal duty to keep their premises in reasonably safe condition for patrons and other invited guests. Put another way, while a store is not necessarily liable for injuries sustained by a customer who slips in a puddle of rainwater near the entrance, if there is evidence the entrance’s design is defective or hazardous, then the customer may have a claim for damages.

Hart v. Wal-Mart Stores East LP

Here is an illustration of this principle from an ongoing personal injury lawsuit from Columbus, Georgia. The plaintiff went to the local superstore to shop in its garden center. it was raining at the time. When the plaintiff stepped inside the store, he slipped and fell and sustained serious injuries.

Georgia Jury Awards $600,000 for Pain and Suffering in Restaurant Slip and Fall Case

November 17, 2017 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

In a premises liability case, a defendant may be held responsible for failing to post proper warning signs regarding a hazard on the property, such as a “wet floor” sign near a puddle of water. These types of slip and fall cases are highly fact-specific, however, and what constitutes an inadequate warning in one case may be deemed insufficient to prove the defendant’s liability in another case.

Vineyard Industries, Inc. v. Bailey

Here is an example in which the defendant was held liable. This is a recent Georgia slip and fall case involving a popular fast food restaurant. The victim is a minor who went to the defendant’s restaurant one morning for breakfast. After placing her order, she used the restroom. Upon exiting the restroom, she passed the restaurant’s drink machine, where she slipped and fell on the wet floor.

Georgia Court Says Funeral Attendee can Proceed With Slip-and-Fall Claim Against Church

October 31, 2017 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Personal injury claims based on premises liability under Georgia law generally revolve around two questions. First, did the property owner have knowledge of the hazard that caused the plaintiff’s injuries? Second, did the plaintiff have “equal or superior” knowledge of the same hazard, thereby absolving the defendant of any potential liability?

Stewart v. Brown

Here is a simple illustration of how courts examine these questions in practice. This is taken from a recent decision by the Georgia Court of Appeals. In this case, a trial judge granted summary judgment to the defendant in a slip-and-fall case. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and returned the case for trial on the merits.

How Imprecise Statements Can Derail Your Slip-and-Fall Claim

May 12, 2017 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

In any kind of personal injury case, it is important to be as precise as possible in your recollection of events. Obviously, nobody has a perfect memory, and you may be called to testify about an accident months or years later. But the words you use are taken seriously and literally by the court. You cannot expect a judge or jury to “know what you meant,” especially when your testimony undercuts a key argument in your case.

Hartman v. Clark

Consider a recent slip-and-fall case from here in Georgia. The plaintiff was patronizing a restaurant owned by the defendant. In a deposition, the plaintiff said she entered the restaurant’s bathroom, and after about 5 or 10 minutes she exited one of the stalls and “fell backwards,” causing injuries to her back and ankle.

Photographs Insufficient to Prove “Dangerous” Crosswalk in Slip-and-Fall Case

September 4, 2016 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

One of the most common types of personal injury claims against the owner of a business or other premises is the “slip and fall.” Essentially, there is a hazardous condition on a given property that causes a visitor to slip, fall, and suffer some form of serious injury. Under Georgia law, the premises owner may be liable if he or she knew—or should have known—about such an “unreasonably dangerous” condition and failed to take appropriate steps to remedy it.

Alsip v. Wal-Mart Stores East LP

Proving whether an “unreasonably dangerous” condition exists often requires a careful examination of the facts surrounding a particular accident. A Georgia judge will not simply take a plaintiff at his or her word that there was a hazardous condition. To the contrary, it is often necessary for a plaintiff to employ one or more technical experts who can explain to the court why the premises owner failed to act in an appropriate manner.

Georgia Store Faces “Slip and Fall” Trial Over Clothing Rack Placement

April 1, 2016 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

If you are injured on someone else’s property, the owner may be liable for negligence. This is known in Georgia as “premises liability.” A common type of premises liability occurs when a customer slips and falls in a store due to a hazardous condition. If the store had “superior knowledge” of the hazard and the customer exercised “ordinary care” for his or her own safety, then a jury may find the store liable under premises liability.

Stephens v. Kmart Corporation

Premises liability cases tend to be highly fact-specific. Here is a recent example from here in Georgia. In this case, the plaintiff was shopping with her husband at a store in Tifton, Georgia. She was browsing through a series of clothing racks set up on the sidewalk in front of the store’s entrance. While attempting to move between the racks, the plaintiff’s “foot stepped off the curb, causing her to fall on the asphalt.” She sustained a serious injury to her back as a result.

Georgia Appeals Court Orders New Trial in Personal Injury Case Where Defendant Admitted Liability

October 4, 2014 | Benjamin S. Persons, IV

Personal injury litigation is often complicated, but there are some simple rules that everyone should understand. For example, when a lawsuit enters pre-trial discovery, each party may serve written requests for admission on the opposing party or parties. Oftentimes, requests for admission simply help establish basic facts about a case—e.g., “The defendant was driving a red Honda Accord.” The other party can file a written response admitting or denying each request. But if a party declines to file a response within a specified time period, either 30 or 45 days under Georgia law, then the statement is deemed admitted by the non-responsive party.

Vis v. Harris

Here is a recent case where requests for admission played a critical role. This is a slip-and-fall case. The plaintiff said she was injured when she tripped on a defective piece of carpet at an Atlanta hotel. She named a hotel employee, the hotel’s owner, and its management company as defendants.