No personal injury case should be thought of as “easy to win,” even for an experienced Indiana injury lawyer. A slip and fall case, however, can be especially challenging. What are the hurdles? Where are the pitfalls? Let’s take a look at some of the potential obstacles in a slip and fall case, from the predictable to the not-so-obvious.
Sometimes there is not much physical evidence.
A car crash is going to result in observable physical damage to the vehicles involved. There might even be an official police report. Slip and fall cases don’t usually work this way.
What happens where there are no witnesses and no video footage? What if the only evidence is a slip and fall story and a report of pain? A lack of physical evidence can make it very difficult to establish the necessary chain of cause and effect.
Damage to soft tissue is not always evident.
Soft tissue injuries, though incredibly painful, can be difficult to document in the context of a slip and fall case. A broken bone is easy enough to spot on an x-ray, but a torn rotator cuff may not show up on conventional scans.
Even when the physical pain is intense, jurors tend to place a lot of emphasis on what they can see. When injuries are invisible, it can complicate the legal process and open up holes for the defense to try and pick at.
Cause and effect can be tricky to establish.
From the perspective of the victim, the cause and effect of a slip and fall is usually pretty straightforward:
- you were walking;
- you slipped and fell; and
- you suffered injuries.
If there’s a loose board or a crack in the concrete, that might make it easier in terms of documentation. But what happens when the hazard isn’t so clear? What about a wet spot on the floor that subsequently dries or is cleaned up? What about improper snow or ice removal? What if—God forbid—you hit your head so hard you can’t be sure what caused you to fall?
Who knew about the hazard and when did they know it?
A property owner or manager can only be held responsible for hazards they either knew about or should have known about. As a result, a common slip and fall defense is for the owner or manager to deny all knowledge: I didn’t know anything about it.
When the person who should be accountable is claiming no responsibility, you need to contradict them. A war of words is unlikely to settle anything, which means your attorney will need to do some digging into if and when management actually learned (or should have learned) about the hazard that led to the slip and fall.
The State of Indiana uses a modified comparative fault standard.
Indiana combines two different recovery theories—comparative fault and contributory negligence—into a hybrid approach called modified comparative fault. Under this system, a plaintiff’s recovery can be reduced based on their own level of culpability. As you might expect, this leads property owners, managers, and other defendants to argue that the injured person bears a significant portion of the blame.
Here’s the catch under the modified comparative fault standard—if you (the injured person) are found to be more than 50% at fault for your own injuries, you recover nothing. For a plaintiff, this is one of the worst possible outcomes.
Make the right call.
A typical slip and fall case frequently involves a lot of dancing and lot of finger pointing. The story offered by the defendant(s) might start as an outright denial before backpedaling into a concession of vague awareness. While this is going on, the defense is trying its best to shift blame to the injured party.
The experienced Indiana injury attorneys at the Marc Lopez Law Firm love a good challenge. If you’ve suffered a slip and fall injury in Indiana, give us a call at 317-632-3642 for a free consultation. Let us turn your frustration into compensation.
