In a California personal injury case where a shopper slips on a cracked tile that had not been repaired for months, the case is likely governed by premises liability law — and it presents strong facts for the plaintiff, especially if the store had prior knowledge of the hazard and failed to act.
⚖️ Legal Elements – Premises Liability in California
To succeed, the injured shopper (plaintiff) must prove the following:
1. Duty of Care
- Under California Civil Code § 1714, business owners owe a duty to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition.
- That includes repairing or warning about known dangers such as broken or uneven flooring.
2. Breach of Duty
- Leaving a cracked or broken tile unrepaired for months is likely a clear breach of that duty.
- Stores are expected to regularly inspect walking surfaces and promptly fix or warn about hazards.
3. Notice – Actual or Constructive Knowledge
This element is critical in determining liability:
- If the store knew about the cracked tile (actual notice) and didn’t fix it, that’s direct negligence.
- If the crack existed for a long time, even without a formal report, the store is considered to have constructive notice — they should have discovered the hazard through reasonable inspections.
A tile unrepaired for “months” likely satisfies constructive notice at a minimum.
4. Causation
- The fall must have been directly caused by the cracked tile, not by another factor.
- Photographs, surveillance, and witness statements can support this element.
5. Damages
- Plaintiff must prove injury and resulting losses:
- Medical bills
- Lost wages
- Pain and suffering
- Permanent disability or future care, if applicable
📎 Evidence That Strengthens the Case
- Photos of the cracked tile and surrounding area.
- Surveillance footage of the fall or prior incidents in that spot.
- Store maintenance logs (showing repair delays or lack of inspection).
- Employee or witness statements confirming prior awareness of the damage.
- Incident report.
- Medical documentation of injuries.
⚠️ Comparative Negligence in California
California uses a pure comparative fault rule:
- If the shopper was partly to blame (e.g., running, distracted), their compensation is reduced by their percentage of fault.
Example: Shopper is 10% at fault. If damages are $100,000 → recovery is $90,000.
🛡️ Possible Store Defenses
- The damage wasn’t hazardous enough to cause a fall.
- The shopper was not watching where they were walking or wore unsafe footwear.
- The store didn’t know about the cracked tile and it wasn’t visible or dangerous enough to warrant repair.
- The cracked tile was part of an ongoing repair plan and warning signs were posted (if applicable).
🕒 Statute of Limitations
- You must file a personal injury lawsuit within 2 years from the date of the fall (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1).
✅ Summary
A slip on a cracked tile that remained unrepaired for months presents a strong negligence case because:
- The store had ample opportunity to identify and correct the hazard.
- The danger was foreseeable and preventable.
- Failure to act shows a breach of the duty of care.
Law Offices of James R. Dickinson – 909-848-8448
How To Schedule A Consultation:
Please call us at 909-848-8448 to schedule a free consultation/case evaluation or complete the form immediately below. [Please note certain formalities must be completed to retain the Law Offices of James R. Dickinson, such as the signing of a legal fee agreement [see “Disclaimers”]].