How Does California Law Establish Fault in a Slip and Fall Accident?

In California, a plaintiff or an injured party needs to prove a property owner was negligent to recover any damages for a slip and fall claim. Negligence is proven by establishing that the defendant or the property owner did not exercise reasonable care in keeping their property safe or that they failed to warn others of known dangers.

Then the question becomes what is considered reasonable care? A lot depends on the particular circumstances of the situation. In the case of a supermarket, it is expected that employees will act quickly if there’s a spill in an aisle. If the employees don’t clean up the spill immediately upon noticing it, or haven’t regularly patrolled the premises looking for potential hazards, and someone falls and injures themselves, a jury would likely find that the supermarket didn’t exercise reasonable care and establish a ruling in favor of the plaintiff.

If, however, the plaintiff injured themselves in the same supermarket because they ignored well-placed signs indicating wet floors, then plaintiffs can become also at fault for their injury.

Can I file an injury claim if I’m somewhat to blame for the accident? 

The answer to this question is a qualified yes. You can be partly to blame for your accident and still file a claim against the defendant who contributed some form of negligence. California uses a system of negligence called pure comparative negligence. A court or a jury will determine what percentage of blame you share for causing the accident. So long as you’re not 100% to blame for the accident, you can file a slip and fall injury claim against the negligent defendant.

Let’s say that a jury establishes that you’re 25% to blame for a slip and fall injury accident and are awarded $100,000 in damages by the jury. You would be entitled to recover $75,000 in damages.

For example, a person slips on a wet substance that’s on the floor in a gas station. However, the plaintiff is looking at their cell phone as they are walking and not paying attention to the ground underneath them. In this case, they might have seen the dangerous condition had they not been looking at their cell phone. But they were looking at their cell phone, so they did not see the dangerous condition. The defendant would argue that the plaintiff is at least partly responsible because they were looking at their cell phone. Ultimately, a jury would decide how much of the blame they share.

Talk to an Oakland, CA slip and fall injury attorney today 

Venardi Zurada represents the interests of injured plaintiffs and slip and fall injury accidents. We serve the Bay Area from our office locations in Oakland and Walnut Creek. Call our Oakland personal injury attorneys today and we could begin discussing your case right away.