A victim’s ability to recover damages for a slip and fall on someone else’s property is often influenced by how their own negligence contributed to the incident. Property owners and managers have a duty to maintain reasonably safe conditions on their premises and can be made to answer in damages injuries they cause. If the victim is also found negligent, their recovery is reduced proportionally. However, Missouri law allows for partial recovery of damages even by a victim who was primarily at fault.

A person suffering a slip and fall another’s property can be negligent in various ways, such as:

1. Failure to notice obvious hazards — If a person slips on a puddle in a well-lit area with a conspicuous warning sign, they may be deemed partially at fault for failing to heed the notice.

2. Distracted walking — A victim texting or otherwise distracted while walking might not notice a hazard they reasonably should have seen, such as a broken tile or spilled liquid.

3. Improper footwear — Wearing inappropriate footwear, such as high heels in icy conditions, could be seen as contributing to the accident.

4. Ignoring restricted areas — Entering a cordoned-off or restricted area where hazards are known to exist could also constitute negligence.

These actions can lead to a determination that the victim failed to exercise reasonable care for their safety, thus sharing liability for the accident.

Missouri follows the pure comparative negligence rule, which allows injured parties to recover damages even if they are found up to 99 percent at fault for the accident. However, the amount of compensation is reduced by the victim’s percentage of fault. For instance, if a court awards $100,000 in damages but finds the victim 30 percent responsible, the victim would receive $70,000. Even if the victim is found 90 percent at fault, they would still recover $10,000.

A skilled premises liability lawyer can be critical in these cases by demonstrating that the property owner’s negligence was the primary cause of the accident. They can gather evidence showing that the owner failed to address a hazardous condition or provide adequate warnings despite having actual or constructive notice of the danger. For example, if surveillance footage reveals that a spill was present for hours before the accident, a lawyer can argue that the property owner’s failure to clean it up or post warnings constitutes gross negligence.

Additionally, attorneys can counter claims of victim negligence by highlighting mitigating factors. If a victim slipped on an unmarked hazard while distracted momentarily, a lawyer might argue that the distraction was reasonable under the circumstances and that the property owner’s failure to remediate the hazard was far more significant.

The Guirl Law Firm in St. Louis is experienced in hold Missouri property owners and managers culpable for injuries to other caused by failure to keep their premises reasonably safe. If you’ve been hurt in a slip and fall, call us at 314-391-2585 or contact us online to learn how we can help you.