Some common defenses to a slip-and-fall lawsuit include the following:
The dangerous condition was so obvious that any reasonable person would have known about it and attempted to avoid it. However, the plaintiff might be able to challenge this defense if they prove that knowledge of the dangerous condition would not be enough to prevent the slip and fall incident.
The defense could also claim that the plaintiff knowingly put themselves in a dangerous condition despite knowing the risks involved. For example, if you slip and fall while skiing, the defendant could argue that you knew the risks associated with skiing, but you still decided to participate in this activity.
Comparative and contributory negligence is yet another possible defense to a slip-and-fall lawsuit. This defense alleges that the plaintiff played a part in the accident. In other words, they were partially at fault for the accident.
In some states, plaintiffs cannot recover compensation if found to be partially at fault for the accident, even by only 1%. In other states, the settlement to which the plaintiff might be entitled will depend on their contribution to the accident. For instance, if they are 30% at fault, they can only recover 70% of the total settlement.
Some defendants have won slip and fall cases by claiming that the plaintiff had a different choice but still chose the dangerous path, which led to the slip and fall accident. However, for such a claim to stand, the defendant must demonstrate that the plaintiff was aware of the alternative choice but opted for the dangerous one.
Alternatively, the defendant might allege that the dangers were unforeseeable. In other words, any reasonable person would not have known about the dangerous condition.
Lastly, the defendant could claim they did not have adequate time or resources to deal with the dangerous condition. Although this is usually a weak defense, it might be upheld in some situations.
Take a grocery store as an example. Suppose someone slips cooking oil on the floor, and you step on it a few seconds later, leading to a slip-and-fall incident. In that case, the defendant could claim that the difference between the spill and the accident was just a few seconds. Therefore, any reasonable person would not have cleaned up the mess within seconds.