What Does the “Van Den Bron Test” Mean for My Oregon Slip-and-Fall Claim?

Many Portland residents sustain serious injuries in slip and fall accidents while shopping at stores. In some cases, the store’s owner may be liable for such injuries. But Oregon law requires the injured customer to prove that the store knew or should have known about the slipping hazard beforehand.

Proving a Store Owner’s Knowledge of Hazardous “Substances”

Oregon courts often apply what is called the “Van Den Bron test” in slip and fall cases to determine a property owner’s knowledge. The test is named for a 1987 Oregon Court of Appeals decision, Van Den Bron v. Fred Meyer, Inc., arising from a 1982 slip and fall accident. The substance of the Van Den Bron test is that when a customer slips and falls on a “substance,” such as puddle of water in the middle of a store aisle, the customer must prove one of the three things to prevail in a personal injury case against the store owner:

• the substance was actually placed there by the storekeeper;
• the storekeeper knew the substance was on the floor and failed to remove it; or
• the substance had been on the floor for a sufficient amount of time, such that the storekeeper should have discovered and removed it.

Again, the customer need only prove one of these statements is true. But this still requires evidence. Just because you slipped and fell on a substance on the floor of your local supermarket, that fact alone does not meet the requirements of the Van Den Bron test.

A recent federal court decision, Favors v. Walmart, Inc., provides a case in point. Here, the plaintiff was shopping at a Wal-Mart in Salem. While walking down a store aisle, she slipped and fell on an “existing spill.” As a result of the fall, the plaintiff sustained a broken wrist and a sprained ankle, among other injuries.

Unfortunately, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s slip-and-fall claim against Wal-Mart at the summary judgment phase, meaning the judge found there was insufficient evidence to justify sending the case to a jury. The judge explained the plaintiff could not establish Wal-Mart’s knowledge of the “existing spill” under any of the three prongs of the Van Den Bron test.

The plaintiff acknowledged there was no evidence Wal-Mart employees placed the spill there themselves (prong 1). Similarly, there was no evidence presented that Wal-Mart staff knew about the spill prior to the plaintiff’s fall (prong 2), or anyone to determine how long the spill had been there beforehand (prong 3). Absent such evidence, the court said there was simply no basis for establishing any negligence on the part of Wal-Mart.

Contact a Portland Slip & Fall Lawyer Today

You should never assume that just because you are injured while shopping at a store, especially a big-box retailer like Wal-Mart, that the store owner will assume financial responsibility for your medical bills and other losses. You need to speak with a qualified Portland slip & fall lawyer who can review your case and represent you in seeking compensation. Contact Rosenbaum Law Group, PC, today at 503-228-8000 to schedule a free consultation.

Source:

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5665444864569051356