A fall can cause lasting injury, and these claims are harder to prove than most people expect. Knowing the standard is what makes the difference.
A serious fall can lead to broken bones, head injuries, and lasting harm, especially for older adults. But a slip and fall is not automatically someone else's fault. To recover, the injured person generally must show that a property owner or business created or failed to address a dangerous condition it was responsible for.
These cases arise in grocery stores, restaurants, hotels, apartment buildings, parking lots, and other public and private spaces.
Florida imposes a specific and demanding standard for slip-and-fall claims against businesses. Under Section 768.0755 of the Florida Statutes, when a person slips on a transitory foreign substance in a business establishment, the injured person must prove that the business had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition and should have taken action. Constructive knowledge can be shown by evidence that the condition existed long enough that the business should have discovered it, or that it occurred regularly and was therefore foreseeable.
Under changes enacted by House Bill 837 in 2023, the general deadline to file a negligence lawsuit in Florida is now two years from the date of the injury under Section 95.11(5)(a) of the Florida Statutes, reduced from the four-year period that applied to injuries occurring before March 24, 2023.
The same 2023 law adopted a modified comparative negligence standard under Section 768.81, which bars recovery entirely for a plaintiff found to be more than fifty percent at fault for their own injury. Below that threshold, a recovery is reduced in proportion to the plaintiff's share of fault.
This knowledge requirement is often the central battleground in a Florida slip-and-fall case, which is why preserving evidence such as surveillance footage and inspection records early is so important.
In the District of Columbia, slip-and-fall claims proceed under common-law premises liability, requiring proof that the owner knew or should have known of the hazard and failed to exercise reasonable care.
In the District of Columbia, the deadline to file most personal injury lawsuits is three years from the date of the injury.
The District follows the doctrine of contributory negligence, one of the strictest fault rules in the country, under which a plaintiff found even slightly at fault can be barred from recovering. A statutory exception softens this rule for pedestrians, cyclists, and other vulnerable road users injured in vehicle collisions.
The District's contributory negligence rule can be especially difficult in fall cases, where the defense will often argue that the hazard was open and obvious and that the injured person should have avoided it. A well-documented account of the conditions is essential.
The firm acts quickly to secure the evidence that these cases turn on, including video, incident reports, and cleaning and inspection logs, and to establish how long the hazard was present. Meeting the knowledge standard requires this kind of proof, not just the fact of a fall.
Alec Kohn litigated civil matters at a prominent civil litigation firm before founding his own practice. You work directly with the attorney handling your case, and the firm answers 24 hours a day.
The figures on this page are drawn from the following primary and secondary sources. Statutes and penalties change; this summary is reviewed by the firm and is not a substitute for legal advice on your specific matter.
