A customer or client who sustains an injury from a slip-and-fall accident can cause your business many problems. You may face a premises liability claim if the injured party alleges dangerous conditions on your property caused their fall.
As a business owner, you could be held liable if someone is injured on your business property due to a hazardous condition that you knew or should have known about.
Texas negligence law
Premises liability claims are based on negligence. Texas uses a comparative negligence system when assessing liability in slip and fall cases. This means they assign a percentage of negligence to you and the injured party.
In this post, we will discuss some common defenses you can assert in a premises liability action.
Open and obvious
You can argue that the hazard that caused the fall was open and obvious, meaning that a reasonable person would have noticed it and avoided it. Alternatively, you can argue that the injured party had adequate warning of the hazard due to signs or notices you put up.
You generally cannot be held responsible for a hazard you did not know about. To prove their negligence case, the injured party must show that you had notice of the hazard and did not take steps to remedy it.
Actual and constructive notice
The law requires the injured party to show that you had actual or constructive notice of the hazard. The term “actual notice” applies if you knew about the hazard before the accident. “Constructive notice” applies if you should have known about it. For instance, if a liquid spilled on the floor of a retail store hours before a customer slipped on it, a court might find the owner had constructive notice. This means a reasonable store owner would have detected the hazard through routine inspections long before someone was hurt, and therefore a store owner who failed to detect it was negligent.
Timing is key when trying to prove constructive notice. The shorter the amount of time the hazard existed, the better your chance of successfully claiming no constructive notice.
However, if evidence shows that the hazard existed for a longer time, such as several hours, lack of constructive notice might be more difficult to show.
Assumption of risk
Assumption of risk is another common defense. You could argue the injured party knowingly entered the hazardous area knowing there is a risk they would be injured. This defense is often used when the property is inherently dangerous, such as in a construction zone.