Alquizalas,Atanacio,Gamboa,Rondain|LegalBibliography1C|FinalRequirement

Memorandum

TO:

FROM:

Atty.ElviraVeronicaEscuetaDuavit
ChrisErwinSG.Alquizalas
RobertoJoaquinS.Atanacio
RicaRaeC.Gamboa
GabrielleFernandinaS.Rondain

RE:
DefinitionandApplicationofaSlipandFallInjury

DATE:
14December2015

______________________________________________________________________________

QuestionsPresented

1. Whatisaslipandfallinjury?
2. Whattopicoflawdoesthispertainto?

Discussion

A "slip and fall" injury is when one party is injured onthepremisesofanotherparty,or

when one party slips on ice or trips on debris. 1 A slip and fall is characterized as a type of
personalinjury,orinthelanguage ofthelaw,atortcase
.Whenapersontrips,fallsandisinjured
on someone else's property, an option for the aggrieved party is to file a lawsuit against the
ownerofthepropertyforaclaimofdamages.2
Cases involving slip and fall injuries fall under the area of personal injury law and are
thus controlled by the basic rules ofnegligence.3Asaresult,theresponsiblepartiesmustfirstbe
identified in order to determine who incurs liabilityduetoalackofforesight.Thesepartiesmay
include an individual employee or even a property manager or landlord. This area of the law
covers any accident as a result of an unsafe condition that the victim encounters. These
conditionsmaycomefrombothdirectandindirectcauses.4

JohnW.Wade,etal.,Prosser,Wade,andSchwartzscasesandmaterialsonTorts11thEd.,497(1994)

See
http://www.injuryclaimcoach.com/slipandfallaccident.html
3

See
http://www.hg.org/slipandfall.html
4

Id.
1
2

SlipandFallInjuriesinForeignJurisprudence

Slip and fall claims are becoming a common occurrence in courtrooms across America,
some of these occur in the State of Georgia.5 Unless the accident occurs on federal government
property, state laws are usually controlling in determining the outcome of these cases. Their
Code classifies this as a tort under the liability of owners and occupiers of land, specifically
regarding the duty of [the] owner or occupier of land to [an] invitee6 and the duty of [an]
ownerofpremisesto[a]licensee.7

U.S. jurisprudence is also rich with cases concerning slip and fall injuries which are
found in different states. The case of
Alterman Foods Inc v Ligon established the plaintiffs
burden in a premises liability case, wheretheplaintiffmustsatisfyatwoprongedtesttoachieve
a favorable ruling.8 In
Robinson v Kroger
, the Georgia Supreme Court reestablished the burden
andorderofproofinslipandfallcaseswherethePlaintiffisaninviteeonthepremises.9

Another example of a slip andfallinjurycaseis

Dawsonv.PaylessforDrugs(Or.1967)
10

in the state of Oregon. In this case, plaintiff, a sixtythreeyearold woman, brought an action
to recover damages for personal injuries sustained when she slipped andfellonicein defendant
drug store's parking lot. Although the front lot of the store had been cleared of snow and ice,
plaintiff chose to leave through the store's side entrancewhichledtoaparkinglotthatsheknew
remained slippery. Her caution in crossing the lot proved insufficient and she fell on the icy
surface. At the close of plaintiff's case, the defendant's motion for a judgment of involuntary
nonsuit was granted. On appeal, the Oregon Supreme Court, with three justices dissenting,
reversed the trial court's decision and held that there was sufficient evidence from which a jury
could have found the defendant store negligent. Moreover, the court concluded that it waserror
to find theplaintiffguiltyofcontributorynegligenceasamatteroflawmerely becausesheknew
thatthedangerousconditionexisted.

Bentley,Elizabeth,"SlipandFallClaimsinGeorgia"(2008).LawLibraryStudentAuthoredWorks.Paper67.
http://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/lib_student/67
6

2010GeorgiaCode

5131.DutyofowneroroccupieroflandtoinviteeWhereanowneroroccupierofland,
byexpressorimpliedinvitation,inducesorleadsotherstocomeuponhispremisesforanylawfulpurpose,heis
liableindamagestosuchpersonsforinjuriescausedbyhisfailuretoexerciseordinarycareinkeepingthepremises
andapproachessafe.
7

5132.Dutyofownerofpremisestolicensee

(a)Alicenseeisapersonwho:

(1)Isneitheracustomer,aservant,noratrespasser

(2)Doesnotstandinanycontractualrelationwiththeownerofthepremisesand
(3)Ispermitted,expresslyorimpliedly,togoonthepremisesmerelyforhisowninterests,convenience,or
gratification.
(b)Theownerofthepremisesisliabletoalicenseeonlyforwillfulorwantoninjury.
8

CitedinBentley,
supra
note5
9

Id.
10

See
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/orglr48&div=10&id=&page=
5


The injuries that result from these incidents have a wideranging variety. Statistics of
most common slip andfallinjuriesfiledintheUS11showthattheseincludesprainsandfractures
to the knee, ankle, and hip. Most fractures according to the studyamongolderadultsarecaused
by falls. Also, these can cause back and spinal cord injuries which can cause slipped and
herniated discs resulting to limited mobility. Besides this, the upper part of the body is also
susceptible as the falls could produceheadandshoulderinjuries. Thiscouldleadtodislocations
orforthehead,concussionsandevenseizures.

The main questions that must beaskedinslip andfallcaseswouldbewhoaretheparties

liable with regard totheinjuryandwhetherornotthesepartieswereactuallynegligentthatdue
care would have stopped the injury from happening.12 The burden ofproofinthesecases fallon
the injured party. He/She must prove that the owner of the property (or the one who manages)
should have known that there was a potentially dangerous conditionpresentonhispropertythat
he could have fixed,buthedidnotchoosetoactonit.Somequestionsthatthepartymayanswer
toproveliabilitywouldbe:

Did the hazardous condition or obstacle exist long enough that a reasonable property
owneroremployeecouldhavetakenactiontoeliminatethehazard?
Did the property owner or employee have a policy of routinely checking for potential
hazards on the property, and if so, is there some sort of log or other record of whether
theprocedurewasfollowedimmediatelybeforetheaccident?
Was there a reasonable justification for the creation of the potential hazard? And if so,
didthisjustificationstillexistatthetimeofthesliporfall?
Could the hazardous condition have been made less dangerous through preventive
measures such as relocating the hazard, placing adequate warning signage in the area,
orpreventingaccesstothelocation?
Waspoorlightingorlimitedvisibilityafactorincausingtheslipandfall?13
The property owner may counterargue that that the injured party was responsible for
his/her owninjuriesthroughcareless acts.Giventhis,thescopeofthedutyowedbytheownerto
an invitee is one of reasonable care in all circumstances.14 Even though the danger is known to
the plaintiff,thedefendantmaybefoundnegligentifitisnottoodifficulttoeliminatethe danger
and he should reasonably anticipate that the plaintiff might still be injured by it.Thisconceptis
called contributory negligence which would affect the decision of theCourt on whetherornot

See
http://www.beckerlaw.com/legalservices/personalinjurylawyer/slipandfall/commonslipfallinjuries/

See
http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personalinjury/provewinslipfallclaim.html
13

Id.
14

Wade,etal.,
supra
note1
11
12

the plaintiff may claim awards for damages.Somequestionsthatmaybeaskedinordertoprove

contributorynegligencewouldbe:
Did the plaintiff engage in any activity that might havepreventedthemfromnoticingthe
hazard talkingortextingonacellphone, forexample whenanotherwisereasonable
personwouldhavenoticedit?
Did the plaintiff have lawful access to the location where the slip and fall accident
occurred,orwastherealegitimatereasonfortheplaintifftobeinadangerousarea?
Were adequate warning signs posted, and were other safety measures ignored or not
utilizedbytheplaintiff?15
Once the owners or the managers were able to show that the parties were also careless,
thechancesoftheinjuredpartytoclaimawardsfordamageswillslimdown.
The doctrine of assumption of risk16 may also be used by the parties to prove that the
injured person was also liable for the accident. They can show that the injured party had
knowledge of the danger, that there was analternativeroutethatcould havebeentaken,andthat
therewasavoluntarychoicetotaketherisk.17
While some states, as previously shown, are liberal in accepting and ruling on slip and
fall injury claims, other states are still hesitant to do so. In Michigan courts, a strictstandardby
their Supreme Court has stalled claimants from forwarding a case on these incidents. 18 Reports
attribute this decline due to the tougher threshold and the majority Republican composition of
their court. Advocates for slip and fall claims believe this may lead to a legal standard where
thosewhoshouldbeheldliablearenowabletoescapethelegalramificationsfromthesecases.19
LocalApplicationofSlipandFallInjuries

In order to put this concept in a local context, a look into Philippine laws and
jurisprudence is necessary. There have been someinstancesofa slipandfallinjurymentioned
in other cases, however, it is unfortunately not defined anddiscussedinthesamemannerasthat
offoreignjurisprudence.

The case of Caunan v Compaia General de Tabacos de Filipinas20 for example, paved
the way fortheearlyrecognitionwithregardtothesetypesofcasesundertortsandquasidelicts.

Supra
note12

See
http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2489&context=clevstlrev
17

Id.
18

EdWhite,
SlipAndFallCasesToughtoMakeinMichiganCourts
,INSURANCEJOURNAL.COM,January2,
2013,http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/midwest/2013/01/02/275741.htm
19

Detroit.cbslocal.com,
SlipAndFallCasesToughtoMakeinMichiganCourts
,DETROIT.CBSLOCAL.COM,
December27,2012,http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2012/12/27/slipandfallcasestoughtomakeinmichigancourts/
20
CaunanvCompaiaGeneraldeTabacosdeFilipinas,G.R.No.L34914
15
16

In this case, Benigna Caunan was the mother and next of kin to the deceased Gregorio Afable,
who died after a slip and fall accident while contracted as a carpenter. The slip and fall claim,
although not classified as such in 1932, did not prosper as both the trial court and the Supreme
Court found the deceased guilty instead of notorious negligence. The dissent of Justice
Malcolm, on the other hand, pointed out the absurdity in the Courts ruling because in holding
the deceased guilty of notorious negligence, it consequently defeated the purpose of the
Workmens Compensation Act which was toprovideamethodtoavoidindustrialdisputes,to
abolish certain principles of the old law relative to negligence, andto safeguardtherightsofthe
workingclass.21

Although our local laws have no specific mention of slip andfallinjuries,theNewCivil

Code of the Philippines states the source of liability for similar injuries. Under the Code,
whoever party through an act or by omission should cause injury to another party, if fault or
negligence is shown, is obliged to provide for the reparation of damages. If there is no
preexisting contractual relation between the two parties, then it is called a quasidelict.22
However, in spite of contractual relations that may exist betweentheparties,theinjuredpartyis
not precluded from filing suit against the party liable.23 In addition, the acts and omissions
mentioned in this article must be the proximate cause of the injury or damage suffered by the
aggrievedparty.

Conclusion

Cases involving slip and fall injuries involve a balance inaddressingtheaggrievedparty

and the person beingheldliableforsuchinjuriesfromhisproperty.Oftentimes,damagescanbe
claimed from the owner of the property if one is able to prove that the latter did not exert due
diligence in ensuring that his property was in perfect condition so much so thattheinjurycould
havebeenavoided.However,beforeliabilitycanbeprovenanddamagescanbeclaimed,
the burden of proof does not solely lieonthe ownerofpropertyaswell.Theaggrievedparty,on
the other hand must also prove that he had not been negligent enough forhimtocausepersonal
injury to himself. Having said, there are many facts that must firstbeconsideredbeforeonecan
invokeatortunderslipandfall.

Id.

Art.2176.Whoeverbyactoromissioncausesdamagetoanother,therebeingfaultornegligence,isobligedtopay
forthedamagedone.Suchfaultornegligence,ifthereisnopreexistingcontractualrelationbetweentheparties,is
calledaquasidelictandisgovernedbytheprovisionsofthisChapter.(1902a)
23

CocaColaBottlersPhilippines,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.110295
21
22