Property owners owe a duty of reasonable care to their visitors to maintain their property in such a way that avoids unreasonably dangerous conditions which pose a risk of injury to pedestrians. This means that the property owner must keep the premises free of dangerous conditions, such as hazardous snow or ice spillage or foreign substances. The property owner must also maintain appropriate lighting, repair uneven walkways and staircases and correct any other situation that is likely to result in serious injury to visitors. If a property owner creates a dangerous condition on his or her property, or allows such a condition to persist for an unreasonable amount of time, he or she may be liable for damages to some who is injured as a result of the dangerous condition. If you have been injured in a slip and fall accident, contact our expert Boston slip and fall accident attorneys today.
In July 2013, Kelly Hendrickson was shopping at Lowe’s Home Centers store in Nevada. As she was looking at the palm trees in the garden center, she slipped on a wet substance draining from the bottom of several planters. She suffered a skull fracture and hemorrhage in the front of her brain. She has also suffered from chronic neck pain and headaches, increased anxiety and depression issues with her balance, and a lost sense of taste and smell.
According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Hendrickson filed a lawsuit against Lowe’s Home Centers. She asked for $40.6 million for medical expenses, lost earning capacity, and physical and mental pain and suffering. During the trial, Hendrickson’s lawyers reported that 30 other people were injured after falling in Lowe’s garden centers in Clark County during the previous five years, but the company nevertheless did nothing to correct the hazard. The jury found that Lowe’s was 80 percent negligent and Hendrickson was 20 percent negligent. They awarded Hendrickson $13.14 million for medical expenses, lost earnings, and pain and suffering. The jury did not award Hendrickson punitive damages because they concluded that Lowe’s was not guilty of implied malice.