The Key Element In A Slip And Fall Injury Case

All efforts that contribute to settlement of a slip and fall, personal injury case focus on seeking an answer to one central question: Who should be held responsible for the fall-related injuries? Who knew about the problem, and failed to take action, before the plaintiff got injured?

The plaintiff has the right to sue the liable party; what person or entity should the plaintiff sue?

Someone that has slipped and fallen in a store, a restaurant, or along some corridor in a mall should sue the business with the help of Personal Injury Lawyer in Sydney that has been receiving money from the location where the fall took place. Someone that has slipped and fallen in a home should sue the property owner. The owner’s homeowner’s insurance would then become liable for paying the demanded compensation. Someone that has fallen at work should use a worker’s compensation claim.

The plaintiff’s lawyer must establish the veracity behind at least one of these facts.

The property owner knew about the dangerous condition that caused the falling incident to take place. The property owner should have known about the condition that allowed that injurious incident to take place. In other words, it was the owner’s responsibility to arrange for the carrying out of a regular effort, one that should have ensured the identification of any dangerous situation. The property owner help to create the dangerous situation that had managed to trigger the injury causing fall.

Other factors considered during a determination of who should be held liable

How long had the dangerous condition existed? If an accident had happened soon after the identification of a dangerous condition, but before the owner had removed the same hazard, then that fact could work in the owner’s favor.

Had the owner already undertaken some type of action? If so, did the owner’s action appear to have alleviated the problem in a satisfactory manner?

Was the victim careless? Had the victim wandered into a location that had been marked as “off limits”? Had the victim failed to pay attention to where he or she was walking? Had the victim chosen to venture onto rough or unsteady ground, while wearing a flimsy form of footwear?

What was the impact of the injury? Had it forced the plaintiff to rely on some type of medical device, such as a wheelchair? Had it forced the plaintiff’s family to make changes in their home, in order to accommodate the injured family member?

Had it required the plaintiff to pursue a new career, because the injury had made the victim/plaintiff unfit for his or her previous career? Had the injury prevented the plaintiff from pursuing a hobby or other form of recreation, one that had aided, previously, the attainment of pleasure?

More to explorer

Why It Pays To Settle Out-of-Court

Some claimants refuse to accept an offer that has been made by an insurance company, during an attempt at reaching a negotiated