Our personal injury law firm was not involved in the case described in this article.
A recent Court of Appeals opinion upheld the trial court’s dismissal of an injury claim from a slip and fall in a Toys R Us store. The injury claimant slipped and fell within several feet of the front door to a Toys R Us store and injured her knee. It had snowed earlier that day and the night before.
Contrary to a widely held belief a store is not “automatically” responsible for someone who slips and falls and is in injured in their store. Whether or not the store is liable requires a case-by-case analysis.
Under Washington personal injury law a possessor of land is subject to liability for personal injury by a condition on the land if, but only if he/she
(a) knows or by the exercise of reasonable care would discover the condition, and should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk of harm to such invitees, and
(b) should expect that they will not discover or realize the danger, or will fail to protect themselves against it, and
(c) fails to exercise reasonable care to protect them against the danger.
There is an exception to the notice requirement for hazards inherent in the nature of a self-service business or mode of operation, within areas where customers serve themselves.[1] Toys R Us argued and the courts in the case held that the Pimentel notice exception did not apply, because the water on the floor was not caused by the self-service mode of operation of its store, nor did the injured plaintiff slip in a self-service area.
The attorneys for the Toy R Us patron argued that the trial court had erroneously held that a wet floor is never a dangerous condition, as a matter of law, and contends that this position is “absurd.” The Washington Court of Appeals held that this argument was backwards—the trial court did not hold that water on a floor is never a dangerous condition; it rejected her position that a wet floor is always a dangerous condition, and that she was therefore excused from presenting evidence of an unreasonable risk created by this particular wet floor.
The Court of Appeals noted established Washington case law that hold that water on the floor of a retail business does not, in and of itself, create liability.[2]
Her attorneys cited Messina v. Rhodes Co., 67 Wn.2d 19, 406 P.2d 312 (1965). The court distinguished that case because in Messina there more than water tracked in to the store; there was an unusual amount of a foreign substance: dirt, sand, and water. Witnesses in Messina testified there was quite a bit of muddy water on the floor.
If you have been injured in a slip and fall accident you should have an attorney review the case. Slip and fall cases with good facts can be won. But, liability is far from “automatic” and in fact slip and fall cases often are among the most difficult from the standpoint of someone claiming injury.
[1] Pimentel v. Roundup Co., 100 Wn.2d 39, 666 P.2d 888(1983).
[2] Brant v. Market Basket Stores, Inc., 72 Wn.2d 446, 433 P.2d 863 (1967)( Plaintiff slipped and fell inside a store within 8 to 12 feet of an entrance. Summary judgment dismissal upheld); Shumaker v. Charada Inv. Co., 183 Wash. 521, 49 P.2d 44 (1935)(A wet cement surface does not, without more, create a condition dangerous to pedestrians); Merrick v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 67 Wn.2d 426, 407 P.2d 960 (1965)(Sears employee slipped and fell in the bathroom. Dismissal affirmed).