Can I file a claim if I was partially at fault for the slip and fall?
Yes. In California, you may still be able to recover compensation after a slip-and-fall accident even if you were partially responsible for what happened. California follows a pure comparative negligence system. That means an injured person’s compensation may be reduced according to their percentage of fault, but being partly responsible does not automatically prevent them from pursuing a claim.
For example, if you suffered $100,000 in damages after a fall but were found 25% responsible, your recovery could potentially be reduced by 25%, leaving $75,000. Even a person who bears a substantial share of responsibility may still be able to recover the percentage of damages attributable to another negligent party.
If you were injured because of a dangerous condition on someone else’s property in Fontana or elsewhere in San Bernardino County, a Fontana slip-and-fall accident lawyer at Banner Attorneys can evaluate how comparative fault may affect your case and determine what evidence may be available to challenge an insurer’s attempt to place excessive blame on you.
How Does Comparative Negligence Work in a California Slip-and-Fall Case?
California does not use an all-or-nothing rule when an injured person shares some responsibility for an accident. Instead, fault can be divided among the parties.
The California Supreme Court adopted the state’s pure comparative negligence system in Li v. Yellow Cab Co., holding that an injured person’s negligence generally reduces damages in proportion to that person’s share of responsibility rather than completely barring recovery. The California Judicial Council’s civil jury instructions likewise recognize comparative fault as an issue juries may consider when deciding negligence cases.
You can review the California courts’ official Civil Jury Instructions Resource Center for additional information about negligence, premises liability, and comparative fault.
What Does Partial Fault Look Like in a Slip-and-Fall Claim?
Property owners and insurance companies frequently argue that an injured visitor could have avoided the accident. Common allegations include claims that the person who fell:
- was looking at a phone or otherwise distracted;
- ignored a warning cone or sign;
- was walking too quickly;
- was wearing inappropriate footwear;
- failed to notice an allegedly obvious hazard;
- entered an area that was restricted or not intended for customers;
- had been drinking before the accident; or
- failed to use a handrail.
None of these allegations automatically eliminates a premises liability claim. The central question is usually how much responsibility, if any, should be assigned to each party based on the evidence.
Example: You Saw the Hazard but Still Fell
Consider a shopper who notices water on the floor of a Fontana grocery store but believes there is enough room to safely walk around it. The shopper slips anyway and fractures an ankle.
The store may argue that the shopper should have avoided the area entirely. However, that does not necessarily mean the store had no responsibility. Other questions could include:
- How long had the water been on the floor?
- Did employees know, or should they reasonably have known, about the spill?
- Was the area adequately marked?
- Was the warning visible from the direction the shopper approached?
- Did store employees follow their inspection procedures?
- Was there a safer route available to customers?
A jury could ultimately conclude that both the property owner and injured person shared responsibility. Compensation would then generally be adjusted according to the percentage of fault assigned to the injured person.
Can I Recover If I Was More Than 50% at Fault?
Potentially, yes. This is one of the most important distinctions between California law and the rules used in many other states.
California follows pure comparative negligence rather than a modified comparative negligence system. Under the rule established by the California Supreme Court, recovery is not automatically prohibited simply because an injured person was 50%, 60%, or even more responsible for the accident. Instead, damages may be reduced according to the injured person’s percentage of fault.
For example:
| Your Total Damages | Your Percentage of Fault | Potential Recovery Before Other Adjustments |
|---|---|---|
| $100,000 | 10% | $90,000 |
| $100,000 | 25% | $75,000 |
| $100,000 | 50% | $50,000 |
| $100,000 | 70% | $30,000 |
These examples are simplified illustrations only. The actual value of a slip-and-fall claim depends on liability, available evidence, the extent of the injuries, insurance coverage, damages, and other facts specific to the case.
What Must I Prove in a California Slip-and-Fall Case?
Being allowed to pursue a claim despite partial fault does not mean that a property owner is automatically responsible for the accident. An injured person still generally must establish the elements of a premises liability claim.
California’s premises liability jury instructions address the duties of property owners and others who possess or control property. Depending on the circumstances, the case may involve questions about whether:
- a dangerous condition existed;
- the defendant owned, leased, occupied, or controlled the property;
- the defendant knew or reasonably should have known about the hazardous condition;
- the defendant failed to repair the condition, protect visitors from it, or provide an adequate warning; and
- the unsafe condition was a substantial factor in causing the injury.
The current California Judicial Council jury instructions contain specific instructions addressing premises liability, unsafe property conditions, duties to warn, and comparative fault.
What If There Was a Wet Floor or Warning Sign?
A warning sign can be important evidence, but its existence does not necessarily end a slip-and-fall claim.
The insurer may argue that the sign made the condition obvious and that you should have avoided it. However, several factual questions may remain:
- Was the sign actually visible?
- Where was it placed?
- Did it accurately identify the danger?
- Was there adequate lighting?
- Was the hazardous area larger than the area covered by the warning?
- Could customers reasonably avoid the condition?
- Did the property owner have enough time to correct the hazard rather than merely warn about it?
Photos, surveillance video, witness statements, incident reports, and maintenance records can help establish whether the warning was reasonable under the circumstances.
Can the Insurance Company Blame Me for Looking at My Phone?
Yes, an insurance company may argue that distraction contributed to a fall. That does not necessarily mean its assessment of fault is correct.
For example, an insurer might claim you were looking at your phone immediately before falling. Video footage could show that you had already put the phone away or that the hazardous condition was so difficult to see that distraction had little to do with the accident.
Comparative negligence disputes are heavily dependent on evidence. An insurance adjuster’s initial assignment of fault is not the final word on your legal rights.
What Evidence Can Help Reduce Allegations That I Was at Fault?
The sooner evidence is preserved, the easier it may be to determine what actually happened. Helpful evidence may include:
- photos and videos of the hazard;
- surveillance footage;
- witness contact information;
- the property owner’s incident report;
- employee inspection records;
- cleaning and maintenance logs;
- prior complaints about the same condition;
- photos of your footwear;
- medical records documenting how the injury occurred; and
- communications with the property owner or insurance company.
Businesses often overwrite surveillance footage after a relatively short period. For that reason, preserving evidence soon after a serious fall can be particularly important.
What If the Hazard Was Open and Obvious?
Property owners and insurers sometimes contend that a condition was so apparent that the injured person should have avoided it. Whether a hazard was truly obvious, however, can depend heavily on the circumstances.
A condition that appears obvious in a photograph taken afterward may have been difficult to detect because of lighting, crowds, floor patterns, merchandise displays, shadows, weather conditions, or the angle from which the person approached.
Even when a condition could have been seen, the comparative negligence analysis may focus on the relative responsibility of both the injured person and the property owner rather than automatically eliminating the claim.
Who Determines My Percentage of Fault?
In a negotiated insurance claim, the parties may disagree over the percentage of fault and ultimately resolve the issue through settlement negotiations.
If the case proceeds to trial, the jury can be asked to determine whether the plaintiff was negligent and, if so, assign percentages of responsibility among the parties. California’s official jury instructions specifically address comparative fault when the plaintiff’s own conduct is disputed.
This is why an insurer’s claim that you were “mostly responsible” should not necessarily be accepted without examining the underlying evidence.
Common Causes of Slip-and-Fall Accidents in Fontana
Comparative fault disputes can arise in many types of premises liability cases. Banner Attorneys may evaluate falls involving hazards such as:
- wet grocery store floors;
- spilled liquids in restaurants;
- uneven sidewalks;
- broken pavement;
- loose carpeting;
- damaged stairs;
- missing or defective handrails;
- poor lighting;
- debris in walkways;
- leaking refrigeration units;
- recently mopped floors;
- parking lot defects; and
- unsafe conditions in apartment complexes.
Liability depends on much more than the fact that someone fell. The circumstances surrounding the dangerous condition, the property owner’s knowledge, the adequacy of any warnings, and the injured person’s own actions all matter.
What Should I Do If the Property Owner Says the Accident Was My Fault?
Do not assume that the property owner or insurance company has accurately determined liability. After a fall:
- Seek medical care. Some injuries become more noticeable in the hours or days after an accident.
- Report the incident. Ask the business or property owner to create an incident report.
- Photograph the scene. Capture the hazard, surrounding area, warning signs, lighting conditions, and your injuries if possible.
- Identify witnesses. Obtain names and contact information when you can.
- Avoid speculating about fault. You may not yet know how long the hazard existed or whether employees had already been notified about it.
- Preserve your clothing and shoes. They could become relevant if the insurer disputes how the accident occurred.
- Consider speaking with a lawyer before giving a recorded statement. Statements made early in a claim may later be used to argue that you contributed to the accident.
How Banner Attorneys Can Help When Comparative Fault Is Disputed
Slip-and-fall claims can become particularly difficult when an insurance company argues that the injured person should bear most or all of the responsibility.
Banner Attorneys represents injured people in Fontana and surrounding Inland Empire communities. The firm can investigate the circumstances of the fall, evaluate allegations of comparative negligence, preserve available evidence, communicate with insurers, and pursue compensation when another party’s negligence contributed to an injury.
An investigation may include obtaining surveillance footage, reviewing incident documentation, identifying witnesses, examining maintenance practices, and evaluating whether the property owner had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition.
Banner Attorneys handles personal injury matters on a contingency-fee basis, meaning clients generally do not pay attorney fees unless compensation is recovered.
Talk to a Fontana Slip-and-Fall Lawyer About Your Case
If you were injured in a fall and someone is claiming that you were partly responsible, that allegation does not automatically mean you have lost your right to pursue compensation.
California law allows responsibility to be divided among the parties, making it important to determine how the accident happened, what the property owner knew about the dangerous condition, whether reasonable precautions were taken, and whether the insurer is assigning more fault to you than the evidence supports.
Contact Banner Attorneys to discuss a slip-and-fall accident in Fontana, Rialto, Rancho Cucamonga, Ontario, or another nearby Inland Empire community. The firm offers free consultations and can evaluate whether you may have a premises liability claim even if you believe you were partially responsible for your fall.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Every premises liability case depends on its specific facts and circumstances.
Client Review
“I cannot say enough about Brian Banner and his law firm! He took such great care of us. I would highly recommend Brian and his law firm for anyone that has been in an accident.”
––Heather B., YELP REVIEW