Liability in California Slip and Fall Cases | "Should Have Known" standard

Proving Liability in California Slip and Fall Cases

• Either the owner of the premises or an employee of the owner should have known of the dangerous condition because another "reasonable" person in their position would have known about the hazardous condition and fixed it.
• Either the owner of the premises or an employee of the owner knew about the dangerous condition but did not repair or fix it.
• Either the owner of the premises or an employee of the owner caused the dangerous condition (spill, worn spot, broken flooring? etc).

The above can be very challenging in California for many reasons.  Because property owners are, in general, pretty good about the upkeep of their premises, the first situation is most often the one that is litigated in slip and fall accidents. The defense flocks to this to diminish the value of the slip and fall case.  However, the first situation is also tricky to prove because of the words "should have known." This can have different meanings to people, even those hearing the same case. Juries can sometimes be confused about the legal meaning or the differences in what it could mean.  After presenting your evidence and arguments, it will be up to the judge or jury to decide whether the property owner should have known about the slippery steps that caused you to fall.  Your San Diego slip and fall lawyer will also best navigate your slip and fall injury through the California court system.