Fall on commercial property

[grump]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

So some person allegedly slipped on mud on a sidewalk surrounding a relation’s property (not sure if an encircling sidewalk is considered part of a commercial plot) that was allegedly from a sprinkler and are now suing for a million bucks.

The relation is surprisingly non perturbed and is simply waiting for the alleged victim to properly serve papers. Papers were served, but to a residence they no longer live in but rent out to a tenant that has no interaction with the relation. I’m not sure exactly what course they will take when and if the two parties get together but the relation is confident that insurance will protect them.

1. I’m curious what the chances of success the complainant has

2. What sort of tack you’d recommend the owner take? No inch given, go for settlement etc.

3. Any general advice on what to do. Or should the owner simply wait?


Thanks

 

[justalayman]

not enough detail to give an answer.

How is the sprinkler responsible for mud on the walkway? How did the mud cause the person to slip ( not all mud is slippery)? Was the mud on the walk a common known problem to the owner? Was the presence of the mud obvious?

3. Any general advice on what to do. Or should the owner simply wait?

Not sure what else they can do. If the insurance company has not been contacted, it might be a good idea to alert them to the situation. Since a complaint has actually been filed, it is beyond the "will they sue or not" stage.

 

[grump]

I'll try to answer as best I can even though I'm not intimately familiar with the case.

not enough detail to give an answer.

How is the sprinkler responsible for mud on the walkway?

The sprinklers regularly get broken and replaced. From what I've heard One of them may have been broken and water from one of them caused some mud to get into the sidewalk. Or at least thats the theory.

How did the mud cause the person to slip ( not all mud is slippery)? Was the mud on the walk a common known problem to the owner? Was the presence of the mud obvious?

This is the first time AFAIK that someone is suing over mud and the first time anyone's complaining...As for how they fell I can't see their argument getting much more complex than I walked on mud and fell

 

[justalayman]

so, it would appear the person that was injured failed to see an obvious situation that was not known to the owner and as such, had no opportunity to repair the sprinkler or reason to believe there was even a need to repair the sprinkler.

Personally, I cannot see how the mud would cause them to fall. I don't see a great possibility of a win for the plaintiff. That doesn't mean the owners insurance company will not throw some money at it to make it go away.