Slip & Falls & Other Premises Liability Accidents

Welcome to the Rodgers Law Firm

The daily lives of accident victims and their family and friends are changed dramatically when someone is seriously injured in a slip and fall or other accident caused by the carelessness of a property owner or property manager.

The victim’s and the family’s suffering caused by the injury may be further burdened by intense feeling of anger, frustration, and resentment because the injury could have been easily avoided if the person at fault, the wrongdoer, had only been more careful.

We at the Rodgers Law Firm in Fort Worth, Texas understand the pain and losses caused by this type of calamity. Victims may have no transportation, are unable to work due to injury, have no health insurance or large savings to pay for medical care, do not know how to find health care providers that will wait for payment until the case settles, and do not have the energy or know how to deal with the insurance company for the wrongdoer.

That's why we are here – to do everything we can to help our clients get the answers, the assistance, and the compensation that they are entitled to under the law.

We handle premises liability cases all over DFW and surrounding cities, including Dallas, Fort Worth, Arlington, Denton, Burleson, Cleburne, Decatur, Weatherford, Haltom City, North Richland Hills, Richland Hills, Azle, Mineral Wells, Sherman, and Denison.
If you or someone close to you have been injured by another person’s carelessness, contact us for a free, no obligation consultation.

We will meet with you at our office or any location convenient to you.

In a free, no obligation consultation with us you may evaluate our capabilities to help you and other family members work through the legal, economic and emotional hurdles faced when a serious injury is suffered in a premises liability case.

The following pages of detailed legal information will give you insights into the depth of our capabilities in premises liability cases.

Examples of Premises Liability Cases Handled By Our Law Firm

Infant Drowned In Babysitter’s Swimming Pool
Pool Owner Ignored Safety Recommendations Made By Pool Installer
Fort Worth, Texas
While the parents were on a trip, their 15-month-old infant son drowned in their baby sitter’s swimming pool. The sitter had kept the child on a regular basis before the drowning.

Documents obtained after suit was filed showed the pool owner did not follow the written safety recommendations provided by the swimming pool installer and signed for by the pool owner acknowledging the pool owner had received the written safety recommendations.

The pool owner did not child-proof the pool by buying relatively inexpensive safety devices such as a child-proof door lock on the kitchen door that opened into the swimming pool area or a pool alarm that would be triggered when any object weighing more than 10 pounds fell into the pool.

The case was settled prior to trial. (MNM190).

On-The-Job Slip and Fall
Mall Department Store Manager
Irving, Texas
The client, a manager for a nationally known department store chain located in a mall in Irving, Texas, slipped on a cloudy liquid substance while opening the store doors for business the morning after the weekly night-time floor cleaning by a janitorial service company.

Chemical analysis of the liquid residue on her clothing by an expert chemist given the clothing shortly after the accident proved that the liquid residue on the clothing matched the chemical properties of the floor cleaning solution regularly used by store janitorial service company. We obtained the OSHA-required Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for the floor cleaning solution that was obtained from the janitorial service company after suit was filed. The MSDS chemical composition listing matched the chemical properties of the cleaning solution sample given to our expert by the defendant.

This expert testing also negated the defense by the janitorial service company that the liquid on the floor was water or another drinkable liquid, such as a milk shake, that was spilled by an unknown store employee or customer after the cleaning crew left the premises. Lab tests showed that the ph value of the liquid residue on the clothing was so high it would have harmed anyone who attempted to drink it, therefore it could not have been a drinkable liquid dropped by another employee or a customer. The ph value was a number that matched the ph of the defendant’s floor cleaning solution.

The client’s injuries required back surgery and a prolonged absence from work. The case was settled before trial. (CG400)

Slip and Fall On Defective Landscape Drainage System Water
Apartment Resident
Fort Worth, Texas
The client, an apartment resident, slipped on a large wet area on the concrete entrance to her apartment after a heavy rain. Our architectural expert witness determined that, after each rain, the poorly-designed landscape drainage system drained water onto her apartment entrance area rather than into the apartment parking lot and thus created a dangerous condition that made the entrance surface slippery to walk on each time it rained.

Investigation showed the property owner was aware of the dangerous condition for months and did not make repairs despite repeated complaints by apartment residents.

Her injuries required neck surgery and a lengthy absence from work. The case was settled before trial. (WW100)

Apartment Resident Slipped and Fell
On Ice Created by Automatic Sprinkler System During Freezing Weather
Fort Worth, Texas

Our client’s apartment complex lawn was watered by an automatic sprinkler system that activated after midnight. The sprinkler system was not properly designed or maintained and when activated, sprayed water onto large areas of the parking lot and sidewalks as well as the lawn. One March day the weather forecasts on local television stations predicted freezing weather conditions the coming evening. The nighttime temperature was expected to drop into the 20s, well below freezing, for several days.

Our client left his apartment early the next morning after the cold weather had arrived to go to work. To his surprise, the apartment maintenance employees had not turned off the sprinkler system despite the cold weather warning. The sidewalk and parking lot was covered by a thick sheet of glassy- smooth ice.

Despite his best efforts to walk carefully to his car, he lost his footing on the ice and fell, severely injuring his right ankle and leg. His injuries required that he undergo surgery, an open reduction internal fixation of his right ankle. He was off work 30 weeks undergoing the surgery and therapy. The case settled prior to trial. (DT14)

House Renter Burned In Natural Gas Leak and Fire
Utility Failed to Respond to Report of Gas Leak
Arlington, Texas
Our client rented a home in Arlington, Texas. His home was served by two utilities, a water company and a natural gas company. After he moved in, he became concerned by several months of high water bills. Both utilities owned easements in and near the street where the main water and gas lines had been laid underground – making the easement a “premises” controlled by the utilities.

He complained to the city water utility about the high bills, and they sent a crew to his home to test the water line for leaks. The water line tested ran from the street main water line to his water meter, located near the curb of the street in front of his house. The water meter was 90 feet away from his natural gas meter, which was located near his front door.

He was told that the tests showed the water line to his meter was not leaking and that any water leak between the meter and his house was the responsibility of the landlord, not the water utility. He was also told that he might have a slow water leak somewhere underneath the house that was also the responsibility of his landlord.

He decided he would read his water meter each morning before he left for work and each night when he got home from work to see what the daily water usage was when he was not at home. That night he tried to read his water meter, but the local street light was not bright enough. Not having a flashlight, he decided he would use his cigarette lighter to illuminate his water meter.

To his surprise and horror, as soon as he lit his cigarette lighter after holding it near the meter and bending over to read the meter, he was subjected to a ball of flame that engulfed his upper body, severely burning his face, head, and hands.

After suit was filed, the water utility workers that had tested the water line for leaks testified that they had informed the proper natural gas utility employees that there were indications of leaking natural gas detected while inspecting the water line for water leaks. The natural gas line was laid under the street near the water line. Despite this notice, the natural gas utility employees made no effort to locate the gas leak.

The water workers also testified that it was normal for leaking natural gas to follow the path of least resistance in the underground soil, and in this case the path of least resistance was to travel along the path of the main water line to the client’s water meter near the street because the soil was not compacted as much along the water line as it was in the rest of the street area. The case settled prior to trial. (GR52)

Fuel Truck Driver Injured by
Fuel Storage Tank High Pressure Explosion
Violation of OSHA Regulations
Ennis, Texas

Our client was employed as a fuel tank truck driver for a fuel company. He was scheduled to make a delivery of fuel to an asphalt plant that had a 5,000 gallon above-ground storage tank approximately 25 feet long that was used to supply fuel to the asphalt burner and to refuel plant trucks.

The storage tank was subject to OSHA regulations that required that the storage tank be equipped with a relief valve which directed all vapors to an incinerator, that the tank owner ensure that the storage tank was adequately vented to prevent development of pressure, as a result of the fuel filling process, from exceeding the design pressure of the tank, and that the tank owner take steps to prevent or minimize the consequences of catastrophic releases of explosive chemicals.

American Petroleum Institute (“API”) safety standards required pressure and vacuum-relieving devices be placed on the storage tank, and that the storage tank must be regularly inspected by an “authorized inspector,” one that holds an API certification as an inspector.

The owner of the asphalt plant ignored all of these regulations and safety standards for years. The client climbed on top of the storage tank and began the process of pumping 5,000 gallons of fuel into the storage tank through a fill pipe on top of the storage tank. Without his knowledge, pressure began building inside the storage tank while the fuel was being pumped inside it.

As he was nearing completion of the fuel delivery, suddenly and without warning the excess pressure that had built-up in the tank burst out of the fill pipe. The escaping high pressure air blast threw him up into the air and off the top of the storage tank, causing him to fall 10 to 12 feet to the ground at a place 12-15 feet away from the storage tank. The explosion severely injured his neck and back, but luckily he did not require surgery.

The case settled before trial. (FA275)

Grocery Store Shopper Injured in Slip and Near Fall
Improper Clean Up of Spilled Liquid
Fort Worth, Texas

Our client, an aircraft mechanic, was grocery shopping with his wife. While he was walking down an aisle containing bottled water on display, he noticed a woman standing behind a food sample table. He suddenly began slipping on a clear liquid on the floor, a condition that could not be readily seen on the light-colored tile floor.

His feet slipping caused him to loose his balance and begin to fall. He flailed his arms and jerked his torso and neck in quick, rapid movements to regain his balance and avoid falling. These movements successfully prevented him from falling, but in the process the movements aggravated a previous neck injury. He ultimately had to have neck surgery.

As he was in the process of slipping, a woman standing nearby that was working for a food supplier handing out food samples shouted: “Be careful. The floor is wet.” Her warning was obviously too late. While talking with her afterward, she told him that a store employee had just left the aisle after from mopping up bottled water spilled on the floor by a customer.

Our client had enough presence of mind to get her name, address and telephone number because she was the only independent witness who could testify that the defendant grocery store knew the slippery clear liquid was on the floor and had done a poor job of cleaning it up.

The case settled after the independent witness was deposed because her testimony clearly established that the store knew of the dangerous condition. (JP50)

Sudden Drop by Elevator Injures Passenger
Elevator Maintenance Company Fails to Repair Oil Leak
Fort Worth, Texas

Our client, who worked on the 4th floor of a local hospital, entered the hospital elevator on a regular workday and pushed the button for her floor. As the elevator neared the 4th floor, she heard a loud grinding noise and then the elevator stopped abruptly, throwing her forward toward the elevator door and injuring her right shoulder.

After a few seconds the elevator suddenly started going down at a relatively high rate of descent, then, after dropping four floors, stopped abruptly at the basement level, throwing her backwards against the door, injuring her right knee. The doors would not open and hospital maintenance men had to open the doors from the outside and help her out.

The elevator was maintained by an elevator maintenance company based in Dallas. Our elevator expert testified at his deposition that the client’s description of the accident was typical for a situation called “low oil return,” meaning the elevator oil reservoir had leaked oil to the point that there was not enough oil left in the reservoir to allow the elevator to operate properly.

At his deposition, the maintenance company’s employee responsible for performing service on the elevator admitted that he had known the elevator was leaking oil for two or three years and did not repair the leak.

Her shoulder injury required surgery. The case settled before trial. (LJ58)

Overview of Injuries On Someone Else’s Property in Texas

Slip and fall injuries in Texas are part of a liability category called “premises liability” - a catch-all phrase for accidents caused by an unreasonably dangerous condition occurring on someone else’s property.

An owner of property, a “premises,” owes a duty to those he expects and wants to come onto his property, his "invitees," to keep his property in a reasonably safe condition for hazards he knows about or that were reasonably discoverable.

Examples of invitees include customers in retail stores, employees at work, guests in hotels and motels, passengers in airlines, and a university’s own teachers, employees, and students. There are many other settings where individuals go onto property controlled by others as invitees.

A store failing to post wet floor signs causing a customer slip and fall, a fall caused by unsafe conditions, construction site accidents, or assault by employees are all examples of premises liability. Additional examples of premises liability include uneven floors, slippery surfaces, broken sidewalks or steps, and unmarked changes in elevation.

When someone is injured by an unreasonably dangerous situation on another person's property, the victim may be able to recover money damages for those injuries if it can be shown that the property tenant, the property owner, the property management company, the property maintenance company, or anyone else that had control over the unreasonably dangerous situation was careless in keeping the property safe.

Was the Injury-Causing Condition Unreasonably Dangerous?
The most important question to be answered is whether or not the condition causing the accident is, in fact, an unreasonably dangerous condition. There are many things in everyday life that are dangerous. For example, a common dangerous condition in a convenience store parking lot is the presence of four-foot-long raised concrete blocks or barricades that prevent someone driving their car onto the store parking lot from hitting the raised sidewalk in front of the store with their car bumper. Someone who parks in front of the store can be seriously injured if, after parking and exiting his car, he trips over the concrete block while walking from his car to the raised sidewalk.

Is the raised concrete stop dangerous? Yes, any situation capable of causing serious injury has to be considered dangerous.

Is it unreasonably dangerous? Most likely not, especially if the concrete stop complied with all city building code regulations for parking lots.

What might make it unreasonably dangerous to a jury? If the accident occurred at night, if the concrete stop were painted black, if the raised sidewalk behind the stop was also painted black, if the parking lot was poorly lighted at night so that the raised concrete stop could not be clearly seen by anyone walking toward the store – these facts may cause a jury to determine that the dangerous condition was also unreasonably dangerous.

Did the Property Owner Have a Reasonable Opportunity to Make the Condition Safe or to Warn Invitees of the Danger?
The second issue to be analyzed is: Did the person in control of the premises create the condition or actually know about the condition before the accident?

If the answer is “no,” then, under the “time-notice rule,” had the condition been in place for enough time that he would have known about the condition if he had exercised reasonable care by inspecting the premises periodically for dangerous conditions? If the answer is “yes,” then he had a reasonable amount of time to make the condition safe or warn his invitees of the danger and should be held liable under the law.

In the convenience store example above, the facts that the store painted the raised concrete barrier and the sidewalk black may be enough evidence to show that the store created the condition. If previous night-time customers had complained about the condition as being dangerous or had caused them to fall, that would likely constitute actual knowledge of the unreasonable dangerousness of the condition.

If the premises owner did not create the condition or did not actually know about the condition, because the condition was, say, a liquid on the floor inside the convenience store caused by a prior customer spilling his drink, the time-notice rule mandates that there must be evidence of how long the condition was in existence before the accident, and this time period must have given the store personnel enough time to fix the dangerous condition or allow them to give warnings to invitees telling them about the danger.

If the condition is conspicuous as a large puddle of dark liquid on a light floor would likely be, then an employee's proximity to the condition might shorten the time in which a jury could find that the store should reasonably have discovered it.

If an employee was in close proximity to a less conspicuous hazard for a continuous and significant period of time, that fact could also affect the jury's determination of whether the store personnel should have become aware of the dangerous condition.

But in either case, there must be some proof of how long the hazard was there before liability can be imposed on the premises owner for failing to discover and rectify, or warn of, the dangerous condition.

Sometimes the physical condition of the liquid or other substance on the floor would give an indication of how long it was there. For example, say ice cubes had been spilled from a properly functioning soft drink ice-making machine by a customer. The fact that the ice cubes had been on the floor long enough for the ice cubes to fully melt would likely prove to a jury that the condition had been there long enough for store personnel to have discovered the dangerous condition and taken actions to eliminate the hazard to invitees.

Actions to Take After a Slip and Fall Accident
Based on the foregoing, if you have been injured by a dangerous condition on someone else’s property as in a slip and fall accident, follow these suggestions:

First, if your fall was caused by an unusual object or liquid on the surface you were walking on, such as food or oil, save it or a sample in a clean glass container.

Second, carefully observe the condition of the surface and note any defects or problems such as an uneven or slippery area, ripped carpet or broken or missing tiles. If you can, photograph or video the area to show the problem.

Third, note any problems with poor lighting in the area or any other condition that may have caused you to fall or be distracted.

Fourth, ask nearby employees how long the dangerous condition had existed before your fall. It is very helpful to your case if the employees were aware of the dangerous condition before you fell long enough to have fixed the dangerous condition or posted warning signs.

Fifth, notify the store manager, apartment manager, or other responsible person in charge of the location where the fall occurred. Insist on getting a copy of the accident report if one is prepared. Get your copy before you leave the premises.

Sixth, write down the names of the employees who were present when you fell and those to whom you talked about your fall, especially those who knew about the dangerous condition before you fell.

Seventh, gather and write down the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of any customers or other non-employees present when you fell.

Eighth, save important physical evidence and documents for your attorney's review. If the fall caused any oil or other foreign matter to soil or discolor your clothes, do not wash your clothing. Save your clothing in a clean, unused paper bag. Save the shoes you were wearing and place them in a clean, unused paper bag.

Losing the Right to Make the Claim
You must file your Texas premises liability suit within a certain time period or else you will lose your right to pursue your claim. In many premises liability suits, the suit must be filed within two years from the date of the accident.

Simply contacting the business responsible for the premises where the accident occurred or contacting the businesses’ insurance company about the accident is not enough to stop the running of the limitations period.

Cases involving federal and state governmental entities as defendants are governed by a different limitations procedures and periods. Claims against federal government entities are controlled by the Federal Tort Claims Act, which provides:
“A tort claim against the United States shall be forever barred unless it is presented in writing to the appropriate Federal agency within two years after such claim accrues or unless action is begun six months after the date of mailing, by certified or registered mail, of notice of final denial of the claim by the agency to which it was presented.”

Texas governmental entities are controlled by the Texas Tort Claims Act. The claim procedures in this Act must be followed. It requires that written notice, often using mandatory forms supplied by the agency involved, be given to the agency against whom the claim is being made within time periods shorter than a year after the accident, often as short as six months. Certain exceptions do exist in unique circumstances, but they require the analysis of a qualified attorney to determine if they are applicable.

There are other reasons to act quickly. Key witnesses may disappear, witnesses’ memories may fade, and vital documents may be lost. Sometimes it takes months of investigation to determine who the true defendants are that are legally responsible for the accident. It is crucially important that you do not delay in consulting with an attorney.

Contact us for a free no-obligation consultation as soon as possible to ensure that you retain your right to pursue your claim.

Contact Us for a Second Opinion If Another Attorney Has Declined To Represent You
Attorneys regularly decide whether the case that they are reviewing does or does not meet all the requirements to be a viable, sound premises liability case. Making this determination is not an exact science. Based on different experiences and analytic abilities, one attorney may turn down the opportunity to represent a client and another attorney may decide to take the case.

The second reviewing attorney saw something the first reviewing attorney may have overlooked. The first attorney may have decided that liability was not clear, that the damages were not large enough, that there was not available insurance coverage or other sources to pay the money damages, or that there were other problems in seeking a recovery.

We would welcome the opportunity to review your premises liability claim even if another attorney has turned the case down. There is no charge or obligation for our review.
You may contact us at the following phone numbers at any time:

Office: toll free: 1-866-560-1075

local: 817-717-4080
Copyright 1994 - 2007 Clifford B. Rodgers.
Last Modified July 6, 2007.