In establishing that the owner or operator of a location is negligent in a case based on premises liability, more commonly known as a slip-and-fall, the main query is whether its conduct was reasonable. The property owner, its’ agent or employee must have failed to act as a reasonably prudent person would have acted under similar circumstances. In examining and determining whether the defendant acted reasonably, several variables factor into the analysis of the “reasonableness” of a property owner’s conduct.

One factor involves the length of time that the hazardous condition or obstacle existed. Was it in existence for a sufficient time that a reasonable property owner or employee would have taken action to eliminate the hazard? These are important questions.

Does some record exist of the property owner or its agents following a policy of routinely making safety checks on the property for hazardous conditions? If so, what does the record show of what happened after the accident? Another variable is whether the property owner had any reasonable justification for the potential hazard’s origin. If any such justification did exist at that time, was it still in existence at the time of the accident?

Another element is whether the property owner could have taken measures to make the hazardous condition less dangerous. What preventive measures, if any, were available? Was it possible for the property owner to place signs of warning or caution? Could the property owner have restricted access to the hazard’s location? Often, particularly in slip-and-fall cases in buildings, the issue arises as to the lighting of the area where the accident occurred. Was it poor thus limiting visibility? It is apparent that many issues arise in these cases and experienced legal counsel may be necessary to adequately address all of them.