Property owners have an obligation to ensure that visitors to that property have a safe environment. A store owner has to make sure that there are no significant hazards that could cause injury to a customer, for example.
It is clearly negligent if the store owner knows that there are dangerous conditions but refuses to fix them. Perhaps a pipe is leaking, causing a wet floor that is a significant slip hazard, but the store owner decides not to fix it just because it would be expensive. If someone slips and falls and suffers a spinal cord injury, they can likely sue the store owner.
But what happens if the store owner claims they did not know there was a hazardous condition in the first place? Clearly, they argue, they cannot be held responsible for failing to fix something they did not know about in the first place.
How long has the condition existed?
In a case like that, it is important to consider whether or not the store owner should have known about the dangerous hazard, often depending on how long it existed.
If it is a very new problem, such as a leak that started just an hour before the accident, the store owner may be able to rightfully claim that they did not know there was an issue. But if the pipe was leaking for a month, they should have discovered the hazard and taken steps to rectify it. Even if they genuinely did not know, they could still be negligent because they have not inspected or maintained their store properly.
If you have suffered injuries in an accident on someone else’s property, it is important to understand how premises liability law works and what options you have to seek compensation.