Harrisburg Slip & Fall Case Challenges

A trip to the grocery store, a restaurant, or an office could end tragically for slip and fall victims. While Pennsylvania law allows you to seek compensation for these injuries, commercial property claims present unique obstacles that many victims might have a difficult time navigating.

If you sustained injuries from a slip and fall accident, we encourage you to seek legal help to recover and protect your rights.

At Schmidt Kramer, our knowledgeable Harrisburg slip and fall lawyer are prepared to discuss your situation, providing you with the clarity you need to determine what would be the next step to take if you have a case. Schedule a free consultation today to speak to one of our attorneys. We do not charge any upfront costs or fees unless we successfully win a settlement for you.

Call to schedule your free case review: 717-727-2500.

Top Defense Strategies Commercial Property Owners Use Against Your Claim

A warning sign and cracked floors signal danger for the building's visitors and occupants.

When you pursue a slip and fall claim against a commercial property, expect aggressive defense tactics. Property owners and their insurers have well-established strategies to fight your claim.

You and your attorneys will need to recognize and understand these strategies to prepare a strong case.

Challenging the Existence of the Dangerous Condition

Property owners could claim the dangerous condition did not exist when you fell. Without immediate documentation, this becomes a matter of your word against theirs.

A store manager might argue that surveillance footage shows no liquid on the floor, or that regular inspection logs prove the area was clean. This makes immediate photo evidence vital, especially after the incident occurred. If possible, take pictures of the hazard from multiple angles before leaving the premises.

Pennsylvania’s Comparative Negligence Argument

The most common defense some insurers may use is that you were partially or entirely responsible for your injury. Insurance companies may take this approach so they pay out the minimum amount of claims as possible.

Pennsylvania follows a modified comparative negligence rule, which reduces your compensation by your percentage of fault if you are found to be 50 percent or less responsible. If you are more than 50 percent responsible, you cannot recover any compensation.

The defense might argue these statements to make you partially at fault.

Wore inappropriate footwear
Were you distracted by your phone
Ignored warning signs
Entered restricted areas
Were running or walking carelessly

Disputing Notice of the Hazard

In Pennsylvania, commercial property owners must have either actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition to be held liable. For example, they must have a “wet floor” sign or an “under construction” sign if it could cause visitors or occupants to get hurt. Businesses could defend against liability claims by arguing they did not know about the hazard.

Some property owners may dispute your claims by producing cleaning logs, maintenance records, and employee testimonies to demonstrate that they regularly inspected the area and took reasonable steps to identify and rectify hazardous conditions.

Blaming Third-Party Contractors

Many commercial properties outsource maintenance, cleaning, and snow removal to independent contractors. When you file a claim, the property owner may attempt to shift blame to these third parties.

This defense introduces complexity by involving additional parties and insurance companies in your case. It could extend the timeline for resolving a case and may require you to pursue claims against multiple defendants to recover full compensation.

The “Lack of Causation” Defense

Property owners often argue that something other than their negligence caused your injuries. They could request access to your complete medical history, hoping to find pre-existing conditions or alternative explanations for your symptoms.

They might claim:

Your injuries existed before the fall
Your injuries developed after the incident
You are exaggerating your injuries
Your medical treatment was excessive

Challenging Your Damages

Even if liability is clear, property owners may dispute the value of your claim. They can question whether your medical treatment was necessary, argue your recovery should have been faster, or claim you could have returned to work sooner.

If you are not sure how to handle these defensive strategies, it could diminish the value of your claim. It is recommended to consult with an experienced attorney to take the appropriate steps immediately after your accident to protect your claim. When an attorney handles your case, it gives you the best chance to overcome the opposing party’s defense tactics and secure fair compensation for your injuries.

What Evidence You Need After a Harrisburg Commercial Slip and Fall

After suffering a slip and fall at a store, restaurant, or office building, the evidence you gather will make or break your claim. Commercial property owners typically fight these claims aggressively, making proper documentation necessary for your case.

This type of evidence can help your claim:

Immediate Photographic Evidence: Act quickly to document the scene. Use your smartphone to capture the hazard that caused your fall and the surrounding area, including any missing warning signs.
Incident Reports: Most commercial establishments have procedures in place for documenting accidents that occur on their property. Request that an incident report be completed and ask for a copy before leaving.
Surveillance Footage: Various businesses utilize security cameras to monitor their premises. This footage can provide irrefutable evidence of hazardous conditions, their duration, and the resulting injuries.
Witness Information: Collect contact information from anyone who saw you fall, noticed the hazard before your accident, and observed the aftermath.
Medical Documentation: Seek medical attention promptly, even if your injuries seem minor. Medical records establish a direct link between your fall and injuries and the severity of your injuries.
Weather Records: Obtain local weather records for the date and time of your accident for falls outside commercial properties. This evidence is crucial for claims involving ice, snowfall, or rain-slicked surfaces.
Maintenance and Inspection Records: Your attorney can request inspection records, cleaning schedules, and repair logs to determine whether the business followed reasonable safety procedures or had recurring issues.
Expert Evaluations: Complex cases may require expert testimony from safety engineers who can identify code violations or medical specialists who can link your injuries to the fall.

How to Prove a Property Owner Knew About Dangerous Conditions

You and your attorney need to prove the property owner knew about a dangerous condition. This could be the most challenging aspect of a premises liability claim. Your case depends on proving that the property owner knew or should have known about the hazard. Without this key evidence, even serious injuries may not be enough to win.

Effective strategies that can demonstrate the property owner’s awareness of dangerous conditions include collecting previous complaints, maintenance requests, and any prior accidents related to the same hazards.

If you and your attorney gather proof that shows how long the hazard existed and whether there were reasonable inspections, it could help your potential case. For example, building code violations and the mode of operation could indicate that the property owner was aware of the hazard.

How to Evaluate Settlement Offers for Your Slip and Fall Injury

When you receive a settlement offer for a slip and fall injury, it is essential to evaluate it carefully to ensure you are being compensated.

You and your attorney should consider the following to ensure you are obtaining fair compensation. Although your compensation amount will depend on the specifics of your circumstances, you may want to examine these aspects of your potential case.

Understand the Full Extent of Your Damages

Before evaluating any offer, make sure you have a clear understanding of all your damages. Evaluate these damages:

Medical Expenses: All current medical bills and reasonably anticipated future medical costs related to your injury
Lost Wages: Income lost due to inability to work, including future earning capacity if permanently affected
Pain and Suffering: Physical pain and emotional distress caused by the injury
Loss of Enjoyment of Life: How your injury has affected your ability to enjoy daily activities
Property Damage: Any personal property damaged in the fall

Compare the Offer to Your Actual Damages

The settlement offer should reasonably compensate you for all your damages. You can ensure that you are receiving a fair compensation by:

Calculating your expenses, such as medical bills or lost wages. When you know the exact dollar amount of your damages, it helps you decide if you need to negotiate more with the insurance company.
Not forgetting to consider non-economic expenses, like pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, or loss of consortium.

Assess the Timing

The time that you get a settlement offer can impact settlement evaluations. If an insurance company presents a low offer, they could be hoping that you settle quickly. They may want to provide a settlement before you understand the full extent of your injuries.

It is a good idea not to settle until you have reached Maximum Medical Improvement (MMI). Be aware of your state’s deadline for filing a lawsuit so that you do not miss out on receiving compensation.

Call Schmidt Kramer After Being Injured in a Commercial Property

A slip and fall claim against a commercial property presents significant challenges that can overwhelm injured victims. Liability issues, aggressive defense tactics, and insurance complications are complex aspects of your claim that you do not want to navigate on your own.

At Schmidt Kramer, we have helped our clients get the compensation they need to recover from injuries and damages. Our attorneys understand the specific strategies that local property owners and insurers implement to defend against claims. We can determine if you have a valid case during a free consultation.

Speak to one of our attorneys today: 717-727-2500.

Free Case Review

No Upfront Fees

Testimonials

I can't thank Schmidt Kramer, P.C. enough for their dedication and hard work on my case. After my injury, dealing with the insurance company was overwhelming, but their team stepped in and fought tirelessly to ensure I got the benefits I needed for treatment. They kept me informed every step of the way and worked diligently to reach a fair settlement. Their professionalism, expertise, and compassion made all the difference. If you're looking for a personal injury firm that truly cares and delivers results, I highly recommend Schmidt Kramer, P.C.!
Erhan Yayla
Mike Kosik and his team were incredible. I cannot thank them enough for their hard work and dedication after taking on my case following an auto accident in April 2022 where a driver pulled out in front of me. I highly recommend them should you ever need a personal injury attorney. Thank you so much!
My Atty took good care of all my needs during my issues I was well represented and everything was made clear and up front. I would highly recommend using this office
I can't thank Schmidt Kramer, P.C. enough for their dedication and hard work on my case. After my injury, dealing with the insurance company was overwhelming, but their team stepped in and fought tirelessly to ensure I got the benefits I needed for treatment. They kept me informed every step of the way and worked diligently to reach a fair settlement. Their professionalism, expertise, and compassion made all the difference. If you're looking for a personal injury firm that truly cares and delivers results, I highly recommend Schmidt Kramer, P.C.!
Erhan Yayla
Great compassionate group of people who truly listen & help where needed!
Karen Steyers

Recent Results

$10,043,952.13 Personal Injury
Schmidt Kramer, P.C.partner Gerard C. Kramer won a personal injury action for $10,043,952.13 in Northumberland County on behalf of a volunteer firefighter who was the victim of Intentional Tort. The 50-year-old volunteer firefighter was seriously injured when a barn collapsed, causing a spinal injury which left him a paraplegic. The claim was brought against the arsonist who intentionally started the fire. It is believed that the verdict is the highest ever in Northumberland County.
View Results
$4,034,000.00 Personal Injury
Yesterday a Judge in Union County (Lewisburg, PA) awarded a couple from New Berlin, Pennsylvania, over $4,000,000 because the husband was shot while turkey hunting.You might ask yourself, how does a turkey hunting accident end up with that type of verdict? In order to understand the verdict you would have to know our clients. They are good people who had their life wrecked. Plus, you would have to know the defendant, who should not have been hunting with a gun because he was prohibited after a previous criminal conviction.It is a good verdict, because the Judge was able to do two things with his decision. First, he communicated to two very good people that their losses were something that those of us on the outside could appreciate and value. Mike Hobbins (our client) is a 51 year old guy who lost his sight because a convicted felon --who should not have even possessed a gun-- went hunting illegally, and broke with impunity the most fundamental rule in hunting: identify your target before you pull the trigger. The Judge accepted the financial loss Mr. Hobbins' suffered, but listened closely to the evidence of less tangible losses. When Mike broke down on the stand, because his daughter would end up walking him down the aisle at her wedding, as opposed to how it was supposed to go, the Judge was listening. When Mike could not keep it together, because of how emasculating it was for him not to be able to provide financially for his family, the Judge was listening. It was facts like these that the Judge cited to support the $2,000,000 award for non-economic damages. Second, the Judge wanted to send a message. Union County is a hunting county. Many of the residents hunt there, and people from outside the area come to Union County to hunt. It was my impression, from the Judge's statements as he rendered his decision, that he wanted to send a message to the people in Union County to protect them in their sport. The rules in place to restrict people convicted of crimes not to have a gun are not to be broken. Hunting is serious and you have to identify your target before you shoot. When you turn your back on the rules that are set to provide safety in a sport, you risk being an example. Here, the $1,000,000 punitive damage award sends that message loud and clear.When it really comes down to brass tacks, the right action was taken against a Defendant who may never truly appreciate what kind of impact his reckless choices caused.At Schmidt Kramer, we are injury lawyers. That means we work with people who were hurt in car accidents, who were hurt by the neglect of nursing homes, or those that were seriously injured because of the reckless, thoughtless acts of others. If you or a loved one have been injured in Pennsylvania, we may be able to help. While the verdict yesterday is not one that is representative of every case we do, it does show that serious and dedicated representation can bring good results.Joe ChapmanJanuary 18, 2013
View Results
$2,200,000.00 Auto Accidents
On Monday, January 6, 2014, Schmidt Kramer accident lawyer Scott Cooper obtained a verdict on behalf of his client who is the widow of a man who died in a fiery crash on Interstate 78 in Lebanon County. The awarded verdict of $2.2 million was in a nonjury proceeding before a federal judge in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. That verdict includes $100,000 in punitive damages assessed against the owner of the trucking company.Kamilah Claxton won summary judgment in November after the defendants, Sukhwinder Singh and the trucking company for which he worked, failed to file a brief in opposition to Claxton's motion, which was made in September. The verdict in Claxton v. Singh was issued after the court held a non-jury assessment of damages earlier this month."Mr. Sukhchan Singh, the employer, is liable on the basis of respondent superior, but was also grossly negligent in failing to maintain his vehicle in compliance with state and federal law, particularly with regard to having required safety inspections and correcting defects in its braking equipment," said U.S. District Judge William W. Caldwell of the Middle District of Pennsylvania in his opinion accompanying the verdict."He was also grossly negligent in entrusting his vehicle to Sukhwinder Singh, an inexperienced truck driver who had failed the written test and driving test multiple times before finally earning his commercial driving license," Caldwell said.
View Results
$1,200,000.00 Personal Injury
A Dauphin County jury has awarded a $1.2 million verdict to the parents of a 5-year-old who had an anoxic brain injury and stopped breathing after he had a tonsillectomy.2012-06-26 10:00:00 AMDate of Verdict: June 19. 2012Court and Case No.: C.P. Dauphin County No. 2009-CV-14003-MMJudge: Scott EvansType of Action: Medical malpracticeInjuries: Anoxic brain injuryPlaintiffs Counsel: Terry S. Hyman, Schmidt Kramer, HarrisburgPlaintiffs Experts: Dr. Anna H. Messner, liability; Lucille Packer, Pediatric Otolaryngology, Palo Alto, Calif.; Terry P. Leslie, vocations and earning capacity, Lancaster; Dr. Hilary B. Berlin, pediatric psychiatry, Great Neck, N.Y.Defense Counsel: Andrew H. Foulkrod, Darlene K. King, Foulkrod Ellis, Camp Hill, PADefense Experts: James C. Reilly, Pediatric Otolaryngology, Wilmington, DEComment: A Dauphin County jury has awarded a $1.2 million verdict to the parents of a 5-year-old who had an anoxic brain injury and stopped breathing after he had a tonsillectomy.The entire verdict came against Dr. Andrew M. Shapiro, the doctor who plaintiffs Reginald Graham and Tykeisha Metz alleged chose to have the boy monitored at a pediatric ward. The plaintiffs argued Shapiro failed to tell nurses caring for the baby about, and how to care for, the boy's enhanced risk for respiratory failure.The jury came back on June 19 and awarded Reginald Graham and Tykeisha Mets $500,000 in non-economic damages and $686,170 in loss of future earning capacity, according to the plaintiffs counsel.According to the statement, the baby's mother brought him to Shapiro because she was "'afraid that he might stop breathing during his sleep,'" the plaintiffs' pretrial statement said. Shapiro performed a sleep study and observed the baby's Apnea Hypopnea Index to be 43 — four times higher than what's considered severe. A tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy were performed.According to the plaintiffs, the baby's sleep study results put him at an increased risk for post-operative respiratory complications. Despite this, they argued in the statement, Shapiro ordered the pediatric nurses at the Harrisburg Hospital general pediatric ward to observe the boy as they would any other patients — about once every four hours.The pretrial statement said that one in four children who have an AHI in the 40s and oxygen desaturation below 80 have some type of respiratory problem. The younger the child, the greater the risk of a respiratory problem, the statement said.According to the statement, Shapiro took off the child's pulse oximeter, the finger-mounted device used to measure blood oxygen, and ordered a heart and respiratory rate monitor. The child was 11 months old at the time.The plaintiffs pled that the baby was last seen at 4 a.m. There was no record of his oxygen saturation for the next hour and 45 minutes. He stopped breathing a 6:40 a.m., and his brain was without oxygen long enough to cause demonstrable injury on an MRI."Immediately prior to his surgery, [the child] was a normal child, who could say mama, eat finger foods, and was just on the verge of walking," the statement said. "After his code, [he] was like a newborn. He could not lift his head or sit up. He could not talk. He could not move."In his pretrial statement, Shapiro argued that he recognized the child's pre-operative sleep study showed he was driven to breath by decreased blood oxygen saturation, which he said was typical in patients with obstructive sleep apnea.He argued the American Academy of Otolaryngology dictates that admission to the intensive care unit is not the standard of care. In the statement, he said nurses did not observe signs of respiratory distress. No alarms sounded until the child arrested, the statement said.He said the baby likely arrested as a result of hypoglycemia and/or an acute aspiration, which he argued would not have been identified by blood oxygen saturation.— Ben Present, of the Law Weekly
View Results
$1,024,040.80 Auto Accidents
Scott Cooper settled a wrongful death case on behalf of the widow of a police office who was killed in a car accident in the line of duty for $1,024,040.80. The claim against the other driver was amicably resolved before suit was filed for the entire available policy limits for the other driver. The case took place in Adams County, PA.
View Results

Slip and Fall on Commercial Property? Here are Some Challenges You May Face When Filing a Claim

Table of Contents