If a business owner knows there is a dangerous condition or a clear hazard on their property and does nothing to address it, they may be liable for any injuries someone suffers as a result. Business owners are required to take reasonable steps to keep their property safe for customers, employees and other visitors.
A common defense, however, is for a business owner to claim that they did not know about the hazard until after the accident occurred. The question then becomes whether they can still be held liable.
Should they have known?
In some cases, this can be a valid defense. For example, imagine a grocery store that is thoroughly cleaned every night and is known to be safe at the start of the day. In the middle of the afternoon, a customer drops a jar that shatters, creating a slippery surface covered with broken glass. If another customer slips and falls just minutes later, the store owner may not have had a reasonable opportunity to discover and fix the hazard.
In other cases, however, it may be argued that a reasonable business owner should have known about the dangerous condition and taken steps to address it.
For instance, suppose the slippery floor was caused by a leaking pipe. An investigation reveals that the pipe had been leaking for months and was never repaired. Even if the business owner claims they were unaware of the issue, that lack of knowledge could itself suggest negligence. It may indicate a failure to properly inspect, clean and maintain the property. In that situation, the business could still be liable for injuries caused by the hazard, even if the store owner genuinely didn’t know about it.
Complex cases
Situations like this can make slip and fall cases complicated. Anyone involved in such a case needs to understand the legal options available to them at this time.