Why the Store Blames You for Your Fall
If you have fallen in a store, you may have already heard some version of it: you should have been watching where you were going. It is the most common defense in these cases — and it can be answered.
Why they reach for it
Blaming the injured person shifts responsibility away from the owner and toward someone who cannot easily argue back. Adjusters know that people often assume a fall must have been the victim's own carelessness, so they lean on that assumption from the start.
Why it is not automatically true
Property owners have a duty to keep their premises reasonably safe. Whether a hazard was truly avoidable — given the lighting, the distraction of shopping, and the nature of the hazard — is a factual question, not a given.
Comparative fault protects you
Even if some fault is assigned to you, California's pure comparative fault means you can still recover, with the amount reduced by your share. So the tactic affects how fault is divided, not whether you have a claim.
Evidence answers the blame
Photos of the hazard, surveillance video, cleaning records showing the owner's notice, and witness accounts move the case from assumption to facts. Building that record is how the blame is answered.
Frequently asked questions
The store says it was my fault. Is my claim over?
No. Blame is an argument, not a verdict, and it can be answered with evidence. Even if you are found partly at fault, comparative fault can preserve part of your recovery.
This article is general information about Slip And Fall injury law, not legal advice. Every case is different — talk to a lawyer about your situation.
The law depends on your state
The steps above apply wherever you were hurt. Filing deadlines, fault rules, and limits on damages differ by state — pick yours for what applies to slip and fall.
Bitten by someone else's dog?
A quick, confidential review can tell you where you stand — about two minutes, no cost, no obligation.