This site is part of the Global Exhibitions Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 3099067.


Controlling Slip-and-Fall Liability: Tips for Self-Storage Facility Operators


By Anita Setnor Byer

Self-storage operators are not immune to slip-and-fall liability. While the volume of foot traffic at a self-storage facility may not reach that of other types of businesses, customers must still enter the premises to store, access and retrieve their property. As a result, an exposure to this type of liability exists, and facility operators must take this risk seriously.

Slips and falls are typically caused by transitory foreign substances, meaning any liquid or solid substance or object that doesn’t belong on the floor. Many believe the hazards caused by these items are more likely to occur in restaurants or grocery stores where spilled foods or beverages create dangerous conditions. However, the likelihood of transitory foreign substances shouldn’t be overlooked in a self-storage setting where customers store and move various items that, if not properly cleaned, can create a dangerous condition in the common areas. Consider these scenarios:

  • A tenant spills an oily substance on the floor when moving automotive parts out of his unit; another tenant then slips on that spot and falls, hurting his back.
  • A tenant’s friend slips in a puddle of water that accumulated in the common area when another tenant propped a door open during a rainstorm and forgot to close it upon leaving.

In light of this risk, self-storage operators must know their duties under the law with regard to protecting those on their premises from hazardous conditions, as well as protecting their business against any potential lawsuits.

Follow the Law

Slip-and-fall cases are traditionally based on the principle that a business owner invites others to enter the premises for the purpose of conducting business with him. Legally speaking, this person is considered an invitee and, under common law, a business owner owes a legal duty to protect him from hazardous conditions.

The general duty can be restated in the following manner: A possessor of land (in this case, a self-storage operator) is subject to liability for physical harm caused to his invitees (tenants and visitors) by a condition on the land only if:

  • He knows or by the exercise of reasonable care would discover the condition, and should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk to such invitees.
  • He should expect that they will not discover or realize the danger, or will fail to protect themselves against it.
  • He fails to exercise reasonable care to protect them against the danger.

It’s important to note each state’s common law may have its own peculiarities with respect to defining the precise duty owed by the business owner. Additionally, some state statutes may modify not only respective duties, but methods of proving slip-and-fall cases in court.

For example, a new Florida statute provides that it’s the claimant’s obligation to prove the property owner had knowledge of the hazardous condition. This statute was enacted to legislatively overrule a Florida Supreme Court case that essentially gave claimants the benefit of a rebuttable presumption. As a result, in such jurisdictions, self-storage facilities are no longer on the hot seat in terms of overcoming negative presumptions.

In the context of a transitory foreign substance, such as leaked oil or a puddle of water that has not been cleaned up properly, it’s fair to assume that, in many cases, the substance will create an unreasonable risk to individuals who would not discover it unless brought to their attention, thereby typically satisfying the second element. Similarly, if the self-storage facility failed to clean up the slippery substance, or otherwise failed to warn tenants and visitors of the dangerous condition despite knowing of its existence, it’s fair to say the third element would also be satisfied.

That leaves the first element: Whether the self-storage operator knows of, or by the exercise of reasonable care would discover, the dangerous condition. Although proving knowledge of a hazardous condition can be problematic in some cases, the stickiest issue is usually the determination of whether the self-storage operator should have discovered the dangerous condition before it caused injury to a tenant or visitor. This issue implicates the duty to inspect the premises, which generally requires the business owner to exercise reasonable care to discover dangerous conditions.

Unfortunately, reasonable care is not a fixed concept with defined characteristics. Precisely what’s considered reasonable in any given situation depends on the circumstances, so that behavior constituting reasonable care in one case may be considered negligent in another. It’s this dependence on external factors that precludes a universal, one-size-fits-all approach to meeting one’s duty to exercise reasonable care.

« Previous12Next »
comments powered by Disqus