Slip and Fall and Premises Liability Flashcards
6 cards from real accident attorney practice questions. Tap to flip, then mark Knew It or Still Learning — missed cards come back until you master them.
Read the first 6 Slip and Fall and Premises Liability flashcards as text
What must a plaintiff prove in a premises liability slip-and-fall case?
Answer: The property owner knew or should have known of the dangerous condition and failed to remedy it or warn visitors
Premises liability requires proving duty (to the specific category of visitor), breach (failure to maintain safe conditions or warn), causation, and damages — with the knowledge element (actual or constructive notice) being most contested.
What are the three traditional categories of visitors in premises liability law?
Answer: Invitees, licensees, and trespassers
Invitees (business visitors) receive the highest duty of care (reasonable inspection and repair); licensees (social guests) must be warned of known dangers; trespassers receive only protection from intentional or willful harm.
What is the 'mode of operation' theory in retail slip-and-fall cases?
Answer: A plaintiff can recover without proving specific notice if the store's self-service business model foreseeably creates recurring dangerous conditions
In self-service retailers (grocery stores, gas stations), spills are a foreseeable byproduct of the business model, so some courts allow recovery without proving the specific spill's duration.
What is the 'attractive nuisance' doctrine and who does it protect?
Answer: A doctrine imposing a higher duty on landowners toward child trespassers when an artificial condition on the land is likely to attract children and cause injury
Attractive nuisance recognizes that child trespassers lack the capacity to appreciate dangers like swimming pools, trampolines, or construction equipment — imposing liability on owners who fail to secure such hazards.
What is 'open and obvious' as a defense in slip-and-fall cases?
Answer: A defense that the hazard was so apparent that a reasonable person would have noticed and avoided it, negating the duty to warn
If a hazard is open and obvious, the property owner's duty to warn may be discharged — but the owner may still be liable if the hazard was unreasonably dangerous or the owner could foresee that visitors would be distracted.
What is 'constructive notice' in a slip-and-fall case against a property owner?
Answer: The owner should have discovered the dangerous condition through reasonable inspection because it existed for a sufficient period of time
Constructive notice is proven by showing the hazardous condition existed long enough (e.g., a grape on a grocery floor for 45 minutes) that a reasonably diligent inspection would have discovered and remediated it.