Let me try to put this into perspective. You walk inside a big box store like Costco to buy the New Nintendo Wii. On your way to the back of the store you slip and fall on a wrapper that someone threw on the ground after tasting the pizza samplers. You break your right dominant hand in 7 places and requires internal fixation (i.e. ugly pins). You can't type your work reports and fall back on work assignments, you can't play hockey and you have trouble washing your hair. You can no longer help out around the home and your husband has to play chauffeur. You're not happy. At all.
You want to sue. You want to sue the pants off of the store for not cleaning up the wrappers that people dropped all over the floor after tasting the little samplers. You need compensation to put you in the place you were before the accident. You are losing money. Your husband is getting annoyed playing chauffeur. Your boss is on you to get back to work.
SLOW DOWN. Do not try and sue anyone by yourself. A lawsuit involves the attribution of the risk or the allocation of the responsibility for the accident. In this case we are dealing with a statutory duty of care imposed by Occupiers Liability Act which requires that an occupier take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that persons entering on the premises are reasonably safe when on the premises. At the same time, a person coming onto the property is expected to be reasonably alert to any obvious dangers (i.e. not be contributorily negligent) and not voluntarily assume the risk. (By the way...where you watching were you were walking?)
The onus is on the you, as a Plaintiff to prove on a balance of probabilities that the store was in breach of a positive duty of care. You must be able to point to some act or omission or the part of the defendant which resulted in your injury. In this case I take it that you rely upon the failure of the store to pick up a piece of papers which was apparently discarded in front of you as being the cause of your injury.
The positive or affirmative duty that is imposed upon the defendant does not extend to the removal of every possible danger. It does not require the defendant to maintain a constant surveillance or lookout for potential danger. The defendant meets its duty to take reasonable care if it takes measures that are reasonable in the circumstances. What if the Defendant did not sweep the store all day? What if the aisle you were in was the busiest aisle in the store? What if nothing about store clean up was recorded? What if management did not speak to the Pizza sampler person to warn about the wrappers? What if the wrappers were mixed with water that was not mopped? You may be in luck.
Therefore, there are numerous concepts that a lawyer at Haber and Associates will need invetigate for you. Remember, the duty of care does not extend so far as to require the defendant to remove every possibility of danger. The law does not demand a system of constant surveillance and instant response from a store. You must prove tthat he conduct of the store was unreasonable in the circumstances ,on a balance of probabilities (i.e. an unreasonable system of maintenance inspection or something along these lines...). Remember if the store does not make a positive duty to ensure that it is in a reasonable state of repair and reasonaby safe for people coming onto the premises, it will be found liable.
It's not easy to sue anyone. Speak to a lawyer.
Updated by Matt Lalande
You may reach Matt by email at matt.lalande@haber-lawyer.com