On March 26, 2009, a woman was leaving a deli located in her neighborhood. She had frequented the deli two or three times a week for ten years. On this date, as she left the deli, the heel of her shoe slipped into a crack that was concealed beneath the entryway mat and stuck there causing her to fall. She stated that she was injured in the slip and falland that she believes that the deli owners should be liable for her injuries.
The deli owners contend that there was no crack concealed under any mat intentionally or otherwise. A Long Island Personal Injury Lawyer said that they did not create a hazardous situation by placing an entryway mat at that spot, and that they have never had any notice from anyone suggesting that there was a problem with the placement of the mat. The court reviewed the contentions because the deli owners filed a motion for summary judgment releasing them from any liability associated with this case. They maintain that since there is no evidence that they created the problem, or that they were even aware that the problem existed, that the complainant has not met her burden of proof in this case and it should be dismissed.
In New York, according to the statutory law that governs any slip and fall case in which the complainant seeks to be awarded punitive damages because of an injury, they must show that certain criteria have been met. The first criteria that must be met is that there was in fact a hazardous situation. A New York Injury Lawyer said then the complainant must show that the hazardous condition was either caused by the defendants, or the defendants knew or should have known of the existence of the problem. Once the problem is brought to their attention, the defendants have a reasonable time period to correct the problem or to take steps to warn the general public that may be entering or exiting the property that the condition is present. In this case, the defendant contends that there was no hazard. They contend that the only hazard present was the 2 ½ inch high heels that the complainant was wearing that caused her to fall. They maintain that they were never advised of any hazard prior to the woman’s accident.