24 X 7    CALL : 1-888-334-5676
Slip and fall accidents

Can The Victim of A Slip And Fall Incident Be Charged With Comparative Negligence?

Someone that has fallen on a slippery floor in a grocery store might think that there was no question about the store’s responsibility for any fall-related injuries. Yet the legal system allows the introduction of fact, with respect to comparative negligence.

The victim’s responsibility, if seeking compensation for injuries

Injured victims must show that the property owner was negligent. A property owner could be negligent in terms of assuming ownership, or in terms of maintaining the owned property. The mere presence on a property of an unsafe condition does not provide the victim of an accident with sufficient reason for charging the property owner with negligence. If it could be shown that the owner knew about and ignored that unsafe condition, then that would be proof of negligence.

Charges that defendants might make against a plaintiff that was injured in a slip and fall incident

That the plaintiff did something wrong: For example, the defendant might show that the plaintiff had ventured into a location that had been cordoned off from the public. That the defendant did something unsafe: Maybe the plaintiff stepped onto a rough and uneven surface while wearing sandals. That could not be called a safe action. It would encourage the occurrence of a slip and fall incident.

The types of comparative negligence and their effect on the awarded compensation

Pure comparative negligence: That is when the person that gets injured during an accidental occurrence has a right to some amount of compensation, irrespective of the extent to which that same injured party might have caused the injury-related accident.

That means that no matter how small the compensation might become, the plaintiff would receive it. That stipulation would hold true regardless of the degree to which the plaintiff’s actions, or lack of action contributed towards creation of the reported accident.

Modified comparative negligence: That is when the person that has been injured during an accidental occurrence enjoys only limited access to the available compensation. An injured party cannot claim the available compensation if he or she has contributed in some way to more than 50% of the factors that caused the reported accident.

On the other hand, injury lawyer in Carlsbad knows that if the same injured party was found to have contributed less than one half of the factors that caused the reported accident, then he or she did have a right to claim the available compensation. Of course, that same compensation would be reduced, before being sent to the awaiting plaintiff.

The extent of that reduction would correspond with the degree to which the plaintiff contributed to the accident’s occurrence. If the plaintiff’s actions represented 25% of the contributory factors, then 25% of the money would be taken from the compensation.

Previous ArticleNext Article