Slip & Fall Lawyer

A fall on someone else's property can cause injuries that are anything but minor — a broken hip, a fractured wrist, a torn shoulder, a head injury, a back that never feels the same. And yet slip-and-fall and premises-liability claims are among the hardest injury cases to prove, because the property owner and their insurer will argue the hazard was obvious, that you were not watching where you were going, or that they never knew the danger was there at all. Boyadzhyan Legal Shield represents people injured by unsafe property conditions throughout Los Angeles and the San Fernando Valley, and we handle these cases on contingency — you pay no attorney's fee unless we recover for you.

Founding attorney Knarik Boyadzhyan — a former Deputy Public Defender — brings a trial lawyer's discipline to premises cases, where the outcome is decided by evidence that often starts disappearing the moment you hit the ground: the incident report the store fills out, the surveillance video that captured the fall, the maintenance logs that show how long a spill sat on the floor. That quiet, methodical work is what separates a claim an insurer takes seriously from one they deny.

The heart of a premises case is the concept of notice: to hold a property owner responsible, the law generally requires proof that they knew, or reasonably should have known, about the dangerous condition and failed to fix it or warn about it. A grocery store is not automatically liable every time someone slips — but it can be liable when a spill sat in the aisle long enough that a reasonably careful business would have found and cleaned it. Proving notice, and building the case before the evidence is gone, is where these claims are won or lost. This page explains how a California slip-and-fall claim is proven, how owners try to blame the injured person, the special six-month deadline for government property, and how we handle these cases locally. It is general information about California law, not legal advice — for that, the consultation is free and confidential.

A slip-and-fall claim is a form of premises liability, built on the same negligence framework as any injury case: duty, breach, causation, and damages. Civil Code § 1714 sets the basic rule that everyone is responsible for injury caused to another by their want of ordinary care, and California asks a property owner to use reasonable care to keep the property safe for people lawfully on it. To decide how much care was owed, courts weigh the factors from the landmark case Rowland v. Christian — including how foreseeable the harm was, how obvious the danger was, and how burdensome it would have been to fix or warn about it.

The single most important element — and the one that decides most premises cases — is notice. It is not enough to show that a dangerous condition existed and that you were hurt; the law generally requires proof that the owner knew about the hazard (actual notice) or that it existed long enough that a reasonably careful owner should have discovered it (constructive notice). A puddle spilled thirty seconds before you slipped may not create liability, because the store had no realistic chance to find it. That same puddle, sitting in the aisle for an hour while employees walked past, is a very different case.

Because notice usually cannot be proven with a single document, we build it from many sources: the store's inspection and 'sweep' logs, maintenance records, employee testimony about how the area was checked, prior complaints involving the same hazard, and surveillance video showing how long the condition was present. Then we prove causation — that the hazard, and not something else, caused your fall — and document the full extent of the harm, from the emergency care through the future treatment a serious injury may require. Each piece has to be preserved and assembled, which is why starting early matters so much.

Expect the owner and their insurer to argue the fall was your own fault — that the hazard was 'open and obvious' so you should have avoided it, that you were distracted, that your shoes were inappropriate, or that you were somewhere you should not have been. These arguments are made in almost every premises case, because California's comparative-fault rule gives the defense a financial reason to make them.

California follows a 'pure comparative fault' rule. If you are found partly at fault for your own fall, your recovery is reduced by your percentage of fault — but you are not barred from recovering, even if you were mostly at fault. Being found 20 percent responsible does not end your claim; it reduces it by 20 percent. So the defense's goal is rarely to prove you were entirely to blame — it is to inflate your share of fault as high as possible to shrink what they owe.

Countering that narrative is central to the work. The fact that a hazard was arguably visible does not automatically excuse an owner who created or ignored a dangerous condition, and 'you should have seen it' is an argument, not a verdict. We rebut the comparative-fault story with the specific facts — how the hazard actually appeared, what the lighting and layout were, what a reasonable person would have done — so an unfair share of blame is not quietly assigned to the person who was injured.

Where you fell changes the case. If the dangerous condition was on public property — a cracked city sidewalk, a county building, a state facility, a transit platform — you are dealing with a government entity, and the rules are far less forgiving. Under the California Tort Claims Act, you generally must present a written claim to the responsible public entity within just six months of the fall (Government Code § 911.2) before you can file a lawsuit at all. Miss that window and the claim is usually barred, no matter how badly you were hurt or how clearly the government was at fault.

Public-property cases also carry their own proof requirements — a 'dangerous condition of public property' claim asks you to show the condition created a foreseeable risk and that the entity had notice of it and time to fix it. Because it is not always obvious who owns a given stretch of sidewalk, and because the six-month clock runs from day one, these cases are a strong reason to get advice quickly rather than assume you have the usual two years.

Other property types add their own wrinkles. Falls at apartment complexes can involve a landlord's duty to maintain common areas; falls at hotels, restaurants, and large retailers involve businesses with insurers and defense counsel who handle these claims every day; and swimming-pool and negligent-security cases invoke specific safety obligations. Identifying every responsible party — and every deadline that applies — is part of the early work on any premises claim.

California sets firm deadlines for a premises-injury claim, and missing one generally ends the case no matter how strong it is. For most slip-and-fall claims the statute of limitations is two years from the date of the fall under Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1. That may sound like plenty of time, but the practical clock runs much faster: the physical evidence and video that prove your claim are usually gone within days or weeks unless preserved, so waiting near the deadline can leave you with a valid claim you can no longer prove.

A much shorter deadline applies when a government entity may be responsible. Under Government Code § 911.2, a written claim generally must be presented to the public entity within six months of the incident before any lawsuit can be filed, and the procedural requirements are strict. Because it is not always clear at the outset that a public entity owns the property where you fell, the safest course is to have the claim evaluated early rather than assume which deadline applies. Limited exceptions — such as claims involving a minor — can change these timelines, but they are narrow and fact-specific. This is general information, not legal advice about your particular deadline, which should be confirmed with an attorney.

Boyadzhyan Legal Shield is based in Encino on Ventura Boulevard and represents injured people in premises and slip-and-fall claims throughout the San Fernando Valley and greater Los Angeles — Encino, Sherman Oaks, Tarzana, Van Nuys, Woodland Hills, Studio City, Northridge, and the surrounding communities. These falls happen in the places people go every day: the grocery stores and shopping centers along Ventura Boulevard, apartment complexes and parking structures, restaurants, hotels, and the region's big-box retailers.

Local knowledge is practical here, not decorative. Knowing the businesses, the property managers, and how quickly a given retailer's surveillance system overwrites its footage helps us move fast to preserve the evidence that decides these cases. When a premises claim cannot be settled fairly and has to be filed, San Fernando Valley civil matters are generally heard at the Van Nuys Courthouse, and we appear in Van Nuys and the surrounding Los Angeles County courts.

Working from a single Encino office keeps the firm close to the clients it serves. You work directly with the attorney handling your case — not a rotating cast at a high-volume settlement mill — and because we take these cases on contingency, strong representation is available regardless of your financial situation. The consultation is free, and you owe no attorney's fee unless we recover for you.