Representing the Rights of Injured Individuals Law Offices of Ronald A. Ramos
Law Offices of Ronald A. Ramos

Grocery Store Slip-and-Fall Lawsuit Ends in $1.7M Verdict

slippery A slip-and-fall lawsuit recently ended in a $1.725 million verdict for a plaintiff in Alabama, who suffered severe and permanent injuries requiring eight surgeries, 400 doctor visits and nearly $500,000 in medical bills.

Plaintiff presented evidence to show that even though the store was open 14 hours a day, corporate policy only required employees to inspect the site for safety for a total of 10 minutes every day. These checks were “visual safety checks” that were largely informal. Workers were not required to document them. No supervisor signed off on them. There was no concrete proof they were ever even conducted. This deviated substantially from the practice of other retailers in the Mobile area, where this slip-and-fall injury occurred.

Business invitees at a retail location are owed a higher duty of care in comparison to other types of people present on a site. Texas law recognizes three categories of people on site: Invitees, licensees and trespassers. Adults trespassing are owed the least amount of care. Essentially, property owners are not allowed to cause traps that would intentionally harm them, but they don’t have to remedy or warn about any dangerous conditions. There might be exceptions for child trespassers. Licensees are those who are lawfully on site for business or social purposes. They are owed a mid-range level of care that requires a remedy of known dangers and a duty to warn of them if they are not obvious. Invitees are persons on site for the financial benefit of the property owner/ controller. For these individuals, property owners have to not only remedy dangers and warn of them, they have to inspect the site to determine whether hazards exist.

Although there is no concrete, bright-line rule for how often inspections have to be conducted, industry standards and case law determinations are often considered.

Not every slip-and-fall lawsuit will result in compensation. Plaintiffs have to prove (per the 2009 case of Fort Brown Villas II Cond. Ass’n. v. Gillenwater, that:

  • Condition of property created an unreasonable risk of harm to invitee;
  • Owner knew or reasonably should have known of the condition (with actual or constructive knowledge);
  • Owner failed to exercise ordinary care to protect invitee from danger;
  • Owner’s failure/ breach/ negligence was the proximate cause of plaintiffs’ injuries.

The rules in Alabama, where this case occurred, are similar. According to AL.com, plaintiff was a 60-year-old customer at a Dollar General store in the summer of 2012 when she slipped and fell on a clear liquid laundry detergent that had spilled onto the floor in the aisle of the store where chemicals are sold. (The fact the liquid was clear is noteworthy because had it been bright blue or some other color, defendant may have been able to argue the hazard was “open and obvious.”)

In trying to prove actual or constructive knowledge, plaintiff would need to show defendant either created the hazard, knew about it or that it existed for such a length of time that it should have been discovered. It’s not clear whether plaintiff knew when the hazard was created, but it soon became clear the store’s policy of inspecting the site for potential hazards meant it could have existed for hours before it was discovered.

Our San Antonio slip-and-fall accident lawyers know that these cases often require thorough investigation and thorough understanding of Texas premises liability law.

Contact our experienced San Antonio personal injury lawyers at (210) 308-8811.

Additional Resources:

Alabama jury returns $1.725 million verdict against Dollar General in personal injury case, Sept. 22, 2016, By Prescotte Stokes III, AL.com

More Blog Entries:

Uninsured Drivers Leave Texas Accident Victim Reeling , Sept. 20, 2016, San Antonio Slip-and-Fall Accident Lawyer Blog

Client Reviews
★★★★★
I was in a minor car accident when I first moved to San Antonio. I wasn’t sure if I needed a lawyer but I eventually contacted theLaw Offices of Ronald A. Ramos, P.C. and I’m glad I did. I highly recommend this firm! A.W. - Online Review
★★★★★
Mr. Ramos (Law Offices of Ronald A. Ramos, P.C.) and his staff were GREAT!! I went to their office after a major car accident, and I was not getting anywhere with the insurance company, He and his staff helped me [get] way more than what I was offered by the insurance company its self. N.G. - Online Review
★★★★★
The people at the Law Offices of Ronald A. Ramos, P.C. couldn’t have been any more helpful. Their friendly service team has so much knowledge to offer when it comes to seeking legal advice in a variety of different subjects. They come highly recommended if anyone is looking for any sort of help! M.C. - Online Review
★★★★★
Mr. Ramos has secured a spot as one of the best trial attorneys in San Antonio. His extensive knowledge of the law, ability to connect with jurors, and his admirable reputation among both judges and attorneys make him an absolute asset to the legal community. If you have the opportunity to retain him as legal counsel, consider it a huge privilege. Daniel J. Palmer - Lawyer in San Antonio, TX
★★★★★
Mr. Ramos and his staff are very diligent and effective in litigating personal injury claims and other torts. His representation of clients have resulted in successful outcomes. I myself will refer any cases that will require litigation and a greater expertise. Jesus Vargas - San Antonio, TX Attorney