Abrupt Stop in Escalator Injures Philadelphia Plaintiff

Categories: Slip / Fall Lawyer

Escalator Accident Claims and Facts

Philadelphia premises liability lawyer files claim for plaintiff who alleges that the escalator accident defendants failed to properly maintain and inspect the escalator at the Philadelphia, PA mall where the personal injury occurred while the plaintiff was shopping. As a result, the escalator malfunctioned while the personal injury victim was on it, causing her to fall and sustain injuries on the premises. The defense lawyer maintained that the responsible party had no notice of any problems with the mall escalator, and asserted that the escalator was always properly maintained and serviced.

Slip and Fall Lawsuit

The plaintiff was at the Philadelphia mall (premises), shopping, when she entered onto the escalator in question, which was maintained by the defendant. Suddenly, the escalator stopped, throwing her down several steps onto the floor below and causing her serious slip and fall personal injuries. Her Philadelphia injury lawyer filed a claim based on her maintaining that the defendant failed to properly maintain the escalator on the mall premises, thus causing the abrupt stop. The lawyers for the defense produced records showing that the escalator was serviced and inspected regularly, and that nothing was noted to be wrong in the last inspection, which was 30 days prior to this incident.

Because of the lack of proof of premises liability for lack of maintenance, the slip and fall plaintiff agreed to a premises liability settlement for a nominal amount.

Premises Liability Lawyer Lawsuit Discussion

This Philadelphia premises liability case highlights the fact that just because someone is injured on another’s property, does not mean they are automatically entitled to compensation. In order to prevail in a slip and fall case, there must be solid evidence that the defendant (usually the property owner) knew or should have known that there was a problem, and failed to correct it. There was no such evidence in this premises liability claim, which is why the injured party smartly agreed to a premises liability settlement instead of going to court where victory was unlikely due to lack of evidence.