After falling down in a large chain retail establishment in Waterbury, Connecticut you experience a great deal of pain, you are tremendously concerned about what to do and you are scared and anxious about how you will be properly compensated for your losses. These concerns are very common and very real. We are here to help you through this very difficult time.
After your CT slip and fall, you need to take several steps to strengthen the value of your claim and here are a number of things you could do to harm your case. Found out what to do and what not to do by ordering our FREE comprehensive book "The Crash Course on Personal Injury Claims in Connecticut" for FREE. Call us today at (888) 244-5480 or order it online at www.hcwlaw.com. By properly developing your case with an experience Connecticut personal injury lawyer from the start, you can increase the amount of money you will get for your injuries.
Before the judge gives your CT Slip and Fall case to the jury to begin deliberations after your case is concluded, the judge will provide the jury with "charges" that will instruct the jury as to how they are to apply the law to the facts of our case so they can reach a verdict. There are two major issues that must be decided by the jury: Liability, that is who is at fault. As to the issue of Liability an appropriate jury charge might be:
Constructive Notice. In order for the plaintiff to recover in the absence of proof that the defendant created the condition or actually knew of it, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant had constructive notice. That means that the defendant, using reasonable care, should have known of the unsafe condition in time to have taken steps to correct the condition or to take other suitable precautions. You may consider whether the defendant inspected the premises on a reasonable basis or in a reasonable way in determining whether the defendant should have known of the unsafe condition. You may consider the length of time the condition had existed in determining whether the defendant should have known of the condition had the defendant used reasonable care.