How Are Businesses Held Responsible for Slip and Fall Accidents?
Arizona and Slip and Fall Accidents
When an Arizona business welcomes visitors onto its property, it has a duty to keep those visitors reasonably safe. As a result, keeping the premises in unreasonable condition that contributes to a fall can lead to a personal injury claim against the store.
Whether the business is a nationwide or a local independent grocery store, it has a duty to keep its customers out of harm’s way.
Duty to Maintain
Businesses that open themselves up to the public are legally obligated to maintain reasonably safe premises for their customers.
As a result, a business may be held liable if the injured person can show that the slip and fall accident occurred because of unsafe property conditions.
However, the store’s responsibility for compensating an injured customer depends on the specific facts of the accident and whether the customer contributed to his or her injury.
A variety of factors can lead to slip and fall accidents, such as accumulation of snow or ice, errant floor mats, or haphazard placement of display items.
The store may also have poor lighting, which can lead to poor visibility among customers.
Regardless of the cause, the store’s legal responsibility for a slip and fall accident depends on whether it had or should reasonably should have had notice of the unsafe condition.
A store owner may be legally responsible if it created the unsafe condition, such as using slippery wax to clean the floors.
The owner may also be liable if it knew of the dangerous condition, but failed to take steps to remedy the situation.
For example, the store may be liable if one customer spills a drink in the aisle and then another customer slips.
If you’ve suffered a slip and fall injury in Arizona, schedule a free consultation with Thrush Law Group. You may be entitled to compensation if you slipped, tripped, or fell on someone else’s property due to the negligence of another.
Our Tucson personal injury attorneys can help you prove a property owner was negligent by failing to keep the area free of hazards.