Is it possible for a property owner to claim that the victim of a fall on that same owner’s property helped to cause the injury-creating incident?
Timeline for court case involving a slip and fall incident
The jury would first decide whether or not the owner should be held responsible for any injury that the fall victim has sustained. Once the jury has issued its decision, then the defendant/land owner would have a right to allege that the victim was partly at-fault for the situation that had managed to trigger the falling incident.
What evidence could prove that certain of the property owner’s actions had qualified as negligence?
Personal Injury Lawyer in Cambridge know that the proof of the fact that the same owner knew about the dangerous aspect of his or her property, the aspect that had played a part in causing the slip and fall incident.
Proof that the same owner should have known about the dangers that were associated with a certain aspect of his or her property; evidence that, once identified, the dangerous problem could have been fixed.
How might the defendant’s attorney introduce the idea of shared fault?
Once a plaintiff’s lawyer has argued that a defendant had been negligent, with respect to aiding creation of a accidental fall, then the same lawyer would need to explain exactly how the defendant’s negligence had caused the injury-creating fall.
At that point, the defendant’s lawyer might allege that the defendant’s level of negligence had not been as great as that of the plaintiffs. After having made that allegation, it would be the attorney’s job to compare the negligence of the 2 different parties.
What allegations might be made against the plaintiff?
Lawyers defending someone that had been charged with negligence would need to think of ways that the plaintiff might have aided creation of the injury-causing accident. In this case, that accident had aided development of a slip and fall injury.
• Had the plaintiff worn a flimsy pair of shoes on that day?
• Had the plaintiff chosen to focus on some point in the room, other than on the spot where he or she would be taking a step?
• Had the plaintiff been speaking on a cell phone, when he or she slipped or tripped and then fell down?
After the jury had heard the answers to such questions, then it would need to decide what portion of the plaintiff’s award, if any, ought to be removed?
Consequently, the plaintiff would still receive some money as compensation, but not as much as the amount that had been promised, after the initial verdict. A comparison of the defendant and plaintiff’s negligence should allow members of the jury to decide on how to apportion the award money.