The presented evidence must show that the property owner was responsible for the unsafe condition at the spot where the slip and fall incident has taken place.

Questions that seek to obtain essential insight into reported incident

• Who were the liable parties?
• Should there be a liability charge against a contractor or a manager?
• Had the installer of any feature or any element on the owner’s property been too careless, when carrying out an assigned task?
• Were any of the charged individuals negligent?
• Had the plaintiff been careless?
• Did the plaintiff’s own actions contribute to accident’s occurrence?

Theory of liability: the possible reasons for holding the property owner responsible for a given slip and fall incident.

The owner’s failure to recognize the dangerous nature of the site where the plaintiff slipped and fell: He or she should have recognized the dangerous condition of that specific spot.

Evidence that the property owner had helped to create the unsafe conditions at the spot where the plaintiff slipped and fell.

Evidence that the owner’s scheduled procedures had not included any that could guarantee the identification and removal of an unsafe object.

The inability to identify an acceptable reason for the hazard that ultimately caused the plaintiff to slip and fall.

No effort had been made to alter the hazard that caused the fall, so that it would become less dangerous.

No effort had been made to place some type of warning at that particular spot.

Possible grounds for a defense of the property owner

The personal injury lawyer in St Thomas knows that the defendant will try to prove that the plaintiff had failed to wear a sturdy pair of shoes. Additionally, they might say that the plaintiff had wandered into a location that had been marked “off limits.” Or it is possible that they want to say that the plaintiff’s eyes had not been focused on the objects in the anticipated path of travel.

Before the plaintiff’s decision to enter that dangerous area, he or she had been warned about the possible consequences for such an action. During earlier interactions with the defendant, the plaintiff’s comments had sought to downplay the dangerous aspects of the area where the slip and fall incident took place.

The warning created by the property’s owner proved inadequate, and did not keep people from entering the dangerous region of that same property. The contractor had failed to complete the building project in a manner that met the owner’s expectations, even though the owner had paid the same contractor. An inspector hired by the property’s owner had failed to discover the element of danger in the inspected area.

One of the devices used by the inspector, while taking measurements, had been poorly designed, so that it did not provide the user with an accurate reading.