This article examines the mysterious causes of a slip and fall accident that produces bodily injuries. Take the following as an example:
The injured party was shopping and walking down the "household products" aisle of a discount department store when all of a sudden, she slipped and fell, receiving serious injuries to![Wet Floor Sign and Man Mopping in Order to Prevent a Slip and Fall]()
her body. The injured party claimed the floor was super slippery, which made her left foot slide back, causing her to fall. When the paramedics arrived, they also noticed the floor was or seemed slippery as they treated the injured party. The store manager flatly denied any debris or liquid on the floor; according to some eyewitness testimony and written records from a sweep log, the floor was routinely waxed and buffed using a commercial floor compound that provided a nonslip-type finish. The injured party and her lawyer retained a safety expert to evaluate the floor to help determine if the store followed customs and practices in the inspection, follow-up, and maintenance of the floor in question. The expert employed a Coefficient of Friction Measurement Test, resulting in values suggesting the floor was not slippery above a 0.50 measurement. Also, when the expert inspected the floor, no condition could have caused the injured party to fall.
After careful review and examination of the merchandise on the aisles, it was revealed that most items sold were products of aerosol spray cans, polishes for furniture, and other dusting compounds; this was very interesting. It was determined that during normal business hours, customers would spray the products to smell them, and the fine mist from the spray would eventually settle onto the floor. Now, when the safety expert measured certain parts of the floor, it was found to be very slippery. The coefficient readings would go above 0.18. Due to the store's routine sweep logs verifying sweeping and periodic inspection of the floor surface, this activity would have more than likely removed the overspray. However, the jury still found the store at fault (negligent) in its lack of sweeping during the daytime. No evidence of overspray on the day of the fall was ever presented, but something must have caused the floor to be overly slippery; the test spraying of the cans did appear to be an everyday activity. Thus, the injured party's attorney argued that the hazard and the test spraying were foreseeable, and the store should have done a better job sweeping the area more regularly than it did.
Thus, the jury solved the mysterious cause of this slip and fall. However, this should show the readers that mysterious causes can still prevail in a slip and fall trial.
The injured party was shopping and walking down the "household products" aisle of a discount department store when all of a sudden, she slipped and fell, receiving serious injuries to
her body. The injured party claimed the floor was super slippery, which made her left foot slide back, causing her to fall. When the paramedics arrived, they also noticed the floor was or seemed slippery as they treated the injured party. The store manager flatly denied any debris or liquid on the floor; according to some eyewitness testimony and written records from a sweep log, the floor was routinely waxed and buffed using a commercial floor compound that provided a nonslip-type finish. The injured party and her lawyer retained a safety expert to evaluate the floor to help determine if the store followed customs and practices in the inspection, follow-up, and maintenance of the floor in question. The expert employed a Coefficient of Friction Measurement Test, resulting in values suggesting the floor was not slippery above a 0.50 measurement. Also, when the expert inspected the floor, no condition could have caused the injured party to fall.After careful review and examination of the merchandise on the aisles, it was revealed that most items sold were products of aerosol spray cans, polishes for furniture, and other dusting compounds; this was very interesting. It was determined that during normal business hours, customers would spray the products to smell them, and the fine mist from the spray would eventually settle onto the floor. Now, when the safety expert measured certain parts of the floor, it was found to be very slippery. The coefficient readings would go above 0.18. Due to the store's routine sweep logs verifying sweeping and periodic inspection of the floor surface, this activity would have more than likely removed the overspray. However, the jury still found the store at fault (negligent) in its lack of sweeping during the daytime. No evidence of overspray on the day of the fall was ever presented, but something must have caused the floor to be overly slippery; the test spraying of the cans did appear to be an everyday activity. Thus, the injured party's attorney argued that the hazard and the test spraying were foreseeable, and the store should have done a better job sweeping the area more regularly than it did.
Thus, the jury solved the mysterious cause of this slip and fall. However, this should show the readers that mysterious causes can still prevail in a slip and fall trial.