Usually the victim of a slip and fall injures him or herself because he or she is doing something reasonable, like shopping, or looking for their kids while shopping.  The issue of who the victim of a slip and fall is centers on what that person was doing when they fell.  Were they doing something reasonable or unreasonable? One of the first things I ask a potential client when I am meeting with them is this very question.  If the victim was doing anything unreasonable, you can rest assured the defense will use this to either deny the injury claim in full, or use it to decrease the value under "apportionment of liability."  All this means is if the victim was 25% at fault for doing something unreasonable at the time they fell then the claim value should in kind be reduced by 25%.

I always review whether or not the slip and fall victim was doing anything imprudent or unreasonable when they fell. Some examples can include running in the store, or running in an area they should not be running in, completely ignoring warning signs, or yellow cones warning of slick surfaces, or wet surfaces, or climbing over displays and merchandise.   Believe it or not, I have taken a few cases where the victim tells me there were no warning signs, only to find out later, when obtaining the video evidence, the warning cones are right next to them, or in the area of their view had they been looking.  This fact can become very problematic in a slip and fall case because liability (who is at fault) is always open for attack. A slip and fall case is not like a rear-end car accident where it is clear who is at fault; with a slip and fall case, liability (who is at fault) can be difficult.  This is why many personal injury attorneys shy away from premise liability cases.  Thus, the slip and fall victim is very very important to the case, and their actions prior or during the fall injury is extremely crucial.