In a premises liability case, there may be a number of different theories of recovery. By “premises liability”, I mean an injury that arises on someone else’s premises. These cases are conditioned upon there being some duty owed by the property owner or occupant to the person who is on the property.
Premises Liability Recovery Theories- Slip and Fall
Let’s take your typical slip and fall case. The case occurs at the entrance to a restaurant. The floor is wet. There might be several different theories of recovery.
A fairly basic theory of recovery is what I call the “inherent danger theory”. There is an inherent danger to the entrance floor at a restaurant getting wet for a number of reasons. It may be due to weather. It may be due to the spill of a takeout drink. Memco Stores v. Yeatman, 232 Va. 50 (1986); Austin v. Shoney’s, Inc., 254 Va. 134 (1997) In these inherent danger-type cases, the plaintiff does not have to prove how long the floor was wet, how it got wet. You simply have to prove an unreasonably dangerous condition.
Duty to Warn
Another theory may be a failure to warn. That is, the property owners should have known that the floor was wet or would soon become wet and should have placed some warning.
Failure to Inspect
Another theory is that the wet condition had existed long enough that a reasonable inspection would have detected it. A reasonable occupant then would have dried off the wet area. A final theory of recovery is simply that an employee or representative of the property owner caused the wet condition. See the other posts on this site dealing with premises liability.
Call, or contact us for a free consult. Also for more info on premises liability see the Wikipedia pages. Also see the post on this site dealing with premises liability issues.
