Slip and Fall Claims Against Restaurants

Restaurants generate more falls per square foot than almost any other premises, and the reasons are structural. That works in a claimant's favor, because the hazards are foreseeable and the duty to manage them is correspondingly clear.

  • 138Google reviews
  • 3Attorneys on your case
  • 2 yrsTexas filing deadline
  • No feeUnless we win

Why restaurants are different

Liquid is carried across floors continuously, by staff and by customers. Kitchens produce grease that migrates. Ice and drink spills happen constantly at service areas. Floors are frequently hard-surfaced for cleaning rather than for traction.

None of that is unforeseeable, which is the point. An occupier that knows spills occur constantly is expected to have a system for finding and dealing with them, and the absence of one is easier to establish than in a premises where a spill is genuinely unusual.

The recurring hazard locations

The entrance during wet weather, where tracked-in water accumulates. Drink stations and soda fountains. The path between kitchen and dining room, where grease and liquid travel on shoes. Around bus stations and dish returns.

Bathroom floors, which combine water with hard surfaces. And exterior areas: patios, steps and poorly lit parking areas, which are frequently the landlord's responsibility rather than the restaurant's.

What a restaurant's own records show

Most operations maintain cleaning schedules, floor sweep logs and manager checklists, particularly chains. Those documents either support them or do not.

Health inspection reports are also relevant and are frequently public. Findings about floor condition, drainage or cleaning practices are independent evidence that costs nothing to obtain.

Staff conduct, and why it strengthens a claim

Where a member of staff created the hazard, by spilling, by mopping without signage, or by carrying something that dripped, the occupier is generally treated as knowing about it.

That satisfies the notice element without inspection logs, which is why establishing who created the condition is worth real effort. Footage and staff accounts answer it; the claimant usually cannot.

Wet floor signs, and what they do and do not achieve

A sign is evidence that the occupier knew of the hazard. It is not automatically a defense, and its placement matters: a sign at the end of a corridor does not warn someone entering from the other end.

Signs left permanently in place, which some operations do, arguably cease to warn of anything. Photograph any signage and its position, because both sides will rely on it.

Who the defendant actually is

A franchised restaurant is usually operated by an independent franchisee rather than the brand, and the operating company is the correct defendant. The building may belong to a separate landlord, and exterior areas may be its responsibility.

Cleaning may be contracted out. Establishing who controlled the specific area, and who created the hazard, decides which policies are available.

Summary

Restaurant falls: the recurring pattern
LocationTypical hazardUsually responsible
Entrance in wet weatherTracked-in waterOperator
Drink stationIce and spillageOperator
Kitchen to dining routeGrease and liquid on shoesOperator
BathroomWater on hard flooringOperator
Patio and stepsSurface condition, lightingOften the landlord
Parking areaLighting, surface, iceUsually the landlord

Frequently asked questions

Often, because the hazards are foreseeable. An operator that knows spills occur constantly is expected to have a system for finding and dealing with them, and the absence of one is easier to establish than where a spill is genuinely unusual.

Not automatically. A sign is evidence the occupier knew of the hazard, and its placement matters: one at the end of a corridor does not warn someone entering from the other end. Photograph any signage and its position.

Usually the independent franchisee that operates it rather than the brand. The building may belong to a separate landlord, and exterior areas such as the patio and parking are frequently the landlord's responsibility.

They can be, and they are frequently public. Findings about floor condition, drainage or cleaning practices are independent evidence that costs nothing to obtain.

Talk it through with a lawyer

A free consultation covers whether you have a claim, what the deadline is, and what insurance is actually available.

Contingency fee. You pay nothing unless we win.

Call Now Free Consultation