Had someone been negligent? Had that negligence caused the accident that produced your injury? If the answer to those two questions were “yes,” then the legal system would have to sort out some other issues.
Who should you Sue?
If the owner of the store also owned the property, then there would be only one person that could be the target of a lawsuit. Personal Injury Lawyer in Sydney knows that on the other hand, suppose the owner leased the property; in that case, the plaintiff would have to consider the nature of the negligent act, the one that caused the plaintiff’s injury. Had the owner been negligent about maintenance of the property?
Perhaps no money and been invested in repairs to the roofing. If that were to allow development of a lose tile, then perhaps that lose tile managed to fall on the shopper/future plaintiff.
Still, a property owner would not be the first person to suspect of negligence, if a wet spot on the floor were to be discovered. A worker or a customer would probably have caused creation of that wet area. In either case, it would have been the storeowner’s job to see to the removal of that same wet spot.
While those facts are true, any person that managed to slip and fall in the store might not have sufficient grounds for a lawsuit. That plaintiff’s personal injury lawyer would have to gather some additional facts.
Details that could prove or disprove negligence
How long had that dangerously slippery area existed, before that one customer suffered the effect of its presence? Had the storeowner had sufficient time in which to arrange for its removal? Had the store’s owner supervised the creation of some type of warning, so that customers would know to avoid that particular spot?
At least one of the lawyer’s questions would be directed at the plaintiff/client. What was the nature of the substance on which he or she had slipped? Whenever victims of a slip and fall incident cannot give a clear picture of the conditions that allowed the incident to take place, those same victims do not have a strong case.
Smart victims would also make note of the hour of the day when the fall took place. That would make it easier for the store’s owner to determine the timeline for its discovery, and scheduled clean up. Obviously, the lawyer would check to see if the storeowner’s timeline managed to match with the facts in the plaintiff’s story.
Had the shopper been neglectful or careless? Had he or she failed to pay attention to the floor’s condition, or to a posted warning? Those are other questions that would need to be answered, for resolution of the lawsuit.