1. Reasonable management of the property where the slip and fall injury occurred;
2. The foreseeability of the injury;
Another interesting point is the totality of circumstances to argue or determine ordinary care. Imagine two different locations: the first location is a rural store with wood plank porches and rustic railings, and the second location is a convalescent home that caters to the rehabilitation and care of the disabled and elderly. The demographics and conditions of use, and the amount of traffic would all have to be considered. Many, if not most, of the people using the walkways of the convalescent home have a greater difficulty in maintaining their balance or walk gait in the event of an accidental slip. However, patrons or customers of the rural country store would consist of a more balanced cross section of the general population. To this end, the owners of the convalescent home would likely be required to take reasonable precautions to do their best to eliminate all potential or possible slip and fall hazards, and not just those that create an unreasonable risk of harm. That would be the difference, and that would be how a court would look at the difference.
What about existing harms or dangers? Most safety engineers will state that any existing risk of harm that could have been reasonably prevented is an unreasonable risk of harm in a slip and fall injury case. There are however, practical limits to this general rule of thumb. Many defects may present a low level of risk, but the cost and practicability of removal is unwarranted from an economic and a risk-benefit analysis. A majority of states follow the "trivial defect doctrine" which provides a defense argument to public (government) entities for slight or minor defects in slip and fall or general injury (liability) cases.