Slips, Trips and Falls: Mitigating Premises Liability Claims

• November 3, 2025

By Lauren Meadows

As a general liability insurance defense attorney, I am frequently brought in to defend businesses in premises liability claims two years after the claim occurs. By the time the case gets to me, the facts of the claim are already set. However, insurance agents have the unique opportunity to help their clients prevent a claim from ever occurring by educating their clients on proactive safety procedures.

A few weeks ago, my husband and I walked into a local breakfast establishment. To reach the coffee station, we had to cross a river of standing water that had accumulated on the floor before our arrival.

To the restaurant’s credit, a wet floor sign had been put in the middle of the flood. However, there was so much water on the floor that it extended well beyond the area around the sign and into other parts of the restaurant. I watched as the restaurant staff chatted behind the counter, enjoying the fact that no customers were waiting in line, in no hurry to address the large pool of water on the floor.

My breakfast experience highlights the need for education on safety procedures. While a wet floor sign should absolutely be put out immediately upon the identification of a hazard, the hazard still needs to be addressed in a timely manner.

The purpose of the wet floor sign is to alert the customer to the presence of the hazard and the need to exercise caution until the restaurant has time to remove the hazard. In other words, the presence of the wet floor sign “buys time” for the restaurant, but this time is not unlimited.

Premises liability claims frequently come down to what is known and what is reasonable. The placement of a wet floor sign is intended to give the customer equal knowledge of the hazard’s presence. Once the hazard is known to the customer, they have an obligation to exercise reasonable care for their own safety to avoid it.

Unfortunately for businesses, most courts will find that jury questions exist regarding what is known and what is reasonable, and therefore deny any motions aimed at resolving the case on paper in lieu of a jury trial.

Often, the customer will deny ever seeing or encountering the wet floor sign. Unless there is video footage showing the sign in the customer’s path, a dispute about the sign’s presence will create a question of fact that necessitates a jury trial.

Alternatively, the customer may admit to seeing the sign in the middle of the floor, but will argue that they had no knowledge that the water could extend five feet away from the sign. The issue of whether a wet floor sign in one area of the restaurant should give a customer notice of a hazard in another area is another example of a factual dispute that prevents the claim from being resolved on a dispositive motion.

A third scenario could be that the customer admits to seeing the sign and further testifies that they were cautiously traversing through the water, but fell on their way to the coffee station due to the excessive amount of water on the floor. In this example, the jury issue would be whether it was reasonable for the customer to elect to cross through the water on their way to the coffee station—a question most jurors would answer in the affirmative, particularly when it comes to their morning caffeine.

Likewise, the longer the hazard exists on the floor, the more likely it is that the judge will punt the case to the jury to resolve the issue of whether the restaurant’s maintenance and inspection procedures were reasonable. If four employees have the time to discuss their weekend plans behind the counter, the judge—and the jury—will likely find they had time to address the spill, thus making any failure to do so unreasonable.

By instructing clients on the following four proactive safety procedures, insurance agents have the unique opportunity to both help their clients prevent a claim from ever occurring and defend against claims that are made.

1) Walk the floor. Assign a specific employee the task of walking the floor at regular intervals, proactively looking for potential hazards. Additionally, all employees should be trained to look out for hazards throughout their shift, even if they are not the specifically assigned “safety” employee.

2) Mark the hazard. If a hazard is reported or identified, promptly mark it with an obvious sign or warning in order to alert customers of the hazard’s presence.

3) Promptly address the hazard. Simply putting up a wet floor sign may be insufficient. The business should address the hazard as soon as possible, acting quickly to protect their customers’ safety.

4) Document the safety measures. If a fall does occur, the defense of the claim will be contingent on evidence that the businesstook affirmative steps to protect its customers’ safety. Preserve all videosthat reflect the presence of the wet floor sign and similarly preserve all videos that show the customer traversing the premises, both before and after the fall. If the customer later attempts to deny seeing the wet floor sign, the video will serve as affirmative evidence to the contrary.

Additionally, the business should prepare an incident report and obtain statements from all employees, clearly documenting the safety measures present at the time of the fall.

Lauren Meadows is a partner at law firm Swift Currie in Atlanta, where she represents insurance companies and their insureds on various aspects of insurance coverage and commercial litigation in federal and state courts.