Slip and fall claims have a reputation for being easy, and they are not. Nearly all of them are decided on a single question that has nothing to do with how badly you were hurt: whether the property owner knew about the hazard, or should have known, before you found it.
Updated September 2026
This page is attorney advertising. It offers general information about Missouri law and is not legal or medical advice for your situation. Reading this page or contacting the firm does not create an attorney-client relationship, which is formed only by a written agreement signed by both you and the firm. Any case results described are specific to the facts of those cases; past results do not guarantee, warrant, or predict a similar outcome in any other matter. Finney Injury Law is licensed to practice law in the State of Missouri. The full disclaimer appears at the bottom of this page.
Property owners are not responsible for every injury that happens on their property. They are responsible for hazards they created, hazards they knew about, and hazards that were present long enough that a reasonable inspection would have found them.
That last category, constructive notice, is where most slip and fall cases are won or lost. It is also the reason these claims are so time-sensitive: the evidence that establishes how long a hazard existed is usually surveillance video, and surveillance video does not keep.
Proving you fell is rarely the problem. Proving the owner had actual notice of the hazard, or that it had been there long enough to constitute constructive notice, is the problem. A spill two minutes old and a spill two hours old cause the same injury and produce very different cases.
Most commercial surveillance systems retain footage for a limited window, often a matter of weeks and sometimes days. That footage is frequently the only thing that establishes how long a hazard was on the floor and whether employees walked past it. A preservation demand needs to go out immediately, in writing.
Store personnel typically complete an internal report the same day. It is prepared with litigation in mind, and it often records that the customer declined medical attention or seemed uninjured, which is exactly what an adjuster will quote back later. Getting the full report, along with sweep logs and inspection records, matters.
Owners argue that a hazard was open and obvious and therefore their responsibility ends. Under Missouri's comparative fault system, that argument generally goes to a reduction in recovery rather than a complete bar. Being told your case is worthless because you should have been watching is not the same as it being true.
An unguarded pallet in a national grocery retailer's store fractured our client's femur. Before coming to us, they had taken the case to another firm, which declined it. The retailer's position was that the matter was worth $125,000.
It settled for $2.5 million — twenty times the offer, in a case a previous lawyer had judged not worth taking.
We mention the prior declination for a reason. If you have been told your fall case is not viable, that may be right. It may also mean nobody has yet looked for the video, the sweep logs, or the inspection records.
Past results do not guarantee a future outcome, and every case depends on its own facts. These are public-record results that show what trial-prepared representation can produce.
A national grocery retailer offered $125,000 for an unguarded pallet that fractured our client's femur. A previous firm had declined the case. Read full story →
A produce vendor suffered life-changing injuries after being struck by an uncertified, untrained forklift driver. Read full story →
The insurance company said the wrist fracture had healed. A unanimous jury disagreed in 15 minutes, at more than 10 times the last offer. Read full story →
The spill, the ice, the broken step, the unmarked obstruction, from several angles and including anything that shows how long it had been there. Within minutes of a fall this evidence is typically mopped, salted, or removed, and it never comes back.
Ask that an incident report be made and note who you spoke to. Get the names or descriptions of any employees present and any witnesses, including their contact information. Witnesses in a retail store are strangers who become unfindable within a day.
Surveillance retention is often measured in weeks. A written preservation demand sent right away is what keeps the footage from being routinely overwritten, and it is the step most commonly missed while someone waits to see whether their injury resolves.
Fractures, ligament tears, and head injuries are regularly missed in the adrenaline of the moment, and the incident report will note that you declined care. A same-day evaluation protects both your health and the record.
Generally that a dangerous condition existed on the property, that the owner either created it, actually knew about it, or should have discovered it through reasonable inspection, that the owner failed to remedy or warn about it, and that the condition caused your injury. The contested element is almost always notice: what the owner knew, and when.
It is the legal principle that an owner is responsible for a hazard that existed long enough that a reasonable inspection would have found it, even if no one actually saw it. This is why the duration of a hazard matters so much, and why surveillance footage and employee sweep logs are often the most important documents in the case.
It varies by system and by company, but retention is frequently a matter of weeks and sometimes only days. Footage is typically overwritten automatically. Unless a written preservation demand is made quickly, the evidence that would establish how long a spill was on the floor may be gone before a claim is ever filed.
Not necessarily, and it is rarely a complete answer. Missouri applies pure comparative fault, so if a hazard was partly your responsibility to notice, your recovery is reduced by your percentage of fault rather than eliminated. Property owners assert this argument routinely because it is inexpensive and it discourages claims.
It may be worth a second look. One of our premises cases had been declined by a previous firm; the retailer valued it at $125,000 and it ultimately settled for $2.5 million. A declination sometimes reflects the merits, and sometimes reflects that the video, sweep logs, and inspection records had not been obtained.
No. The same framework covers apartment complexes and common areas, restaurants and bars, office buildings, parking lots and garages, hotels, construction sites, and private residences. Who is responsible depends on who controlled and maintained the area where the hazard was, which is not always the property's owner on paper.
It depends on the severity and permanence of the injury, the medical and wage losses, and the strength of the notice evidence. A serious fracture with clear video of a long-standing hazard is a materially different case from a soft-tissue injury with no evidence of how long the spill had been there.
No cost, no obligation, and nothing is shared outside our firm. We read every message and respond quickly.
The surveillance video may already be on a countdown. Free case review. An attorney personally reviews every case. English- and Spanish-speaking staff available.