Articles Posted in Premises Liability

The New York Times just published a story titled, “A Fatal Slip on the Stairs Cuts Short a Life at 29“. Deaths in slip-and-fall cases are rare. Especially in someone that young. Usually you get fractured wrists or knees. So, an article with a title like that piqued the interest of this Central NY personal injury lawyer like a hurricane from Alaska would a weatherman’s.

So I read on. The article talked about how an unfortunate young lady was found dead, covered in blood, on a landing in a Manhattan building where she was staying with a friend. The police had initially suspected foul play, but later came to the conclusion that she was merely the victim of a slip-and-fall accident. She had been wearing high heels, was carrying a heavy bag and “the stairs were slippery“. The story goes on to talk about what an amazing person this was, how she was having some trouble in her marriage, and how she had just had a really tough week. A nice human interest story for sure, but what I am interested in is, “why were the stairs slippery”? So I kept waiting to get to that part.

And I never did. The article did not say what caused the steps to be slippery. It appears this was an indoor stairway. If the stairs were wet, I would want to know whether (1) management had just mopped them and left them that way with no warning?, or (2) there was a leak in the roof above, or (3) a tenant or someone else had just spilled a soda or something there. All this would be important for me if I were representing the estate of this young lady in a slip-and-fall case in New York against the landlord. In scenarios (1) and (2), the landlord could probably be held liable for negligent maintenance, but in scenario number (3) probably not (unless the spill had been there for a significant period of time, enough time for the landlord’s staff to notice it and clean it up).

I have already blogged about how surveillance cameras have made slam dunk cases out of slam dunk losers. Here’s another example. Just this week I took in a doubtful slip-and-fall case. The plaintiff slipped and fell on some liquid of unknown origin in the produce section of a local supermarket. In the pre-surveillance-camera era, this case would have been a loser. Why? Because you have to show either that the supermarket created the spill, or knew about it and did nothing to fix it, or failed to notice it when it should have noticed it. And how do you prove that when it is just as likely that an inconsiderate shopper made the mess and did not report it a minute before the slip and fall? In the pre-surveillance camera era, I would have turned this case down.

But I did not turn it down, and for one reason: surveillance cameras. I knew there was likely to be a surveillance video that would tell the story of what happened. So I wrote to the supermarket, told them I was representing the slip-and-fall victim, and demanded that they preserve the video subject to legal sanctions if they did not,

Today I received a phone call from a supermarket insurance adjuster who informed me that the video shows a customer spilling a drink 15 minutes before the slip-and-fall, and then shows a supermarket floor inspector walk right past the spill without seeing it, and then shows my client turning a corner and slipping on the spill. It is a slam dunk because the supermarket employee was clearly negligent in performing his floor inspection, which caused him to overlook the obvious spill, and my client was blameless because she could not have noticed the spill before she turned the corner.

Surveillance cameras are a game-changer in personal injury litigation. I blogged about this before, but another recent example illustrates this point.

A client slips and falls in the vestibule entrance of a local movie house. It had been raining, and movie-goers had been dragging in the rain on their feet. The employees had forgotten to lay out the rectangular carpets to absorb the water as they were required to do by company policy. But the insurance adjuster handling the claim tells me it was all my client’s fault because she “rushed” into the vestibule. I formally requested that any surveillance videos of the incident be preserved as evidence. After I sue the movie house (because the insurance carrier refused to pay), I demand the video. It shows my client walking at a normal pace and then sliding for about a foot before finally tumbling to the floor. That floor was like an ice-skating rink, and I have it on video to prove it.

Before the era of surveillance cameras (and they are everywhere now – you would be surprised just where), my client might have lost this case — it was just her word against theirs. Now it is her word, and a surveillance video tape, against theirs.