Resource Hub · Litigation From the Inside
What slip-and-fall experts
actually look for.
Written by auditors retained by both plaintiff and defense counsel — the evidence that decides premises-liability cases, and why documentation beats opinion.
General information, not legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney about any specific matter.
In this guide
What does a slip-and-fall expert witness actually do?
A slip-and-fall expert measures the floor, applies the recognized standards, and explains, in terms a jury can follow, whether the surface met the accepted level of slip resistance and whether the property’s maintenance was reasonable. The job is translation: turning friction science and standards into a clear, defensible opinion. Good experts testify to what the data shows, not to what the retaining side wishes it showed.
Why does testing both sides make us better?
Our firm is retained roughly half the time by plaintiffs and half by the defense. That balance is a discipline: because we’ve built cases from both directions, we know exactly what the opposing expert will request, where a report is vulnerable, and which gaps sink a case. An expert who only ever works one side develops blind spots that opposing counsel is paid to find. See our expert witness services.
What is spoliation, and how do businesses cause it?
Spoliation is the loss or destruction of evidence a party had a duty to preserve. In slip-and-fall cases it usually isn’t deliberate — it’s a security system overwriting video, a sweep log discarded, or a floor resurfaced before it was tested. Courts can respond by instructing the jury to assume the lost evidence was unfavorable. The first 72 hours after an incident are where spoliation is most often created, and most easily avoided.
Why isn’t “the floor met code” a complete defense?
Because code compliance and the duty of care are different questions. A floor can satisfy the prescriptive building code at installation and still be unreasonably slippery in service — worn, contaminated, or wet without warning. Juries weigh notice, maintenance practice, and whether a hazard was foreseeable, not just whether a permit issued years ago. Measured, contemporaneous slip-resistance data speaks to the question that actually decides cases.
What’s the difference between a transient and a structural hazard?
| Transient hazard | Structural hazard | |
|---|---|---|
| What it is | Temporary — a spill, tracked-in rain, a dropped grape | Inherent to the surface — material and finish lack wet traction |
| Case turns on | Notice and response time | The floor’s inherent slip resistance |
| Evidence that matters | Inspection/cleaning logs, sweep records | Slip-resistance testing of the surface |
The distinction matters enormously, because it determines which evidence wins the case. A floor can present both kinds of hazard at once.
What must a defensible audit report contain?
A report that survives cross-examination documents its method, step by step. Every audit we produce establishes:
- Instrument validation — the tribometer complies with ASTM F2508 reference-surface criteria
- Environmental log — temperature and humidity at test time, which affect the rubber slider
- Traceability — a tamper-evident digital record to preempt data-manipulation claims
- Standard-compliant reporting — methodology, conditions and results per ASTM F2048-00 and the field-evaluation guides
Why are maintenance logs the unsung exhibit?
In case after case, the inspection and cleaning log is the quiet document that wins or loses. A consistent, contemporaneous log shows a pattern of diligence; a missing or backfilled one invites the worst inference. Note too that touching a wand to a checkpoint magnet only proves an employee walked past it. Whether anyone actually inspected the floor, or found and cleared an invisible oily film, is a separate question. A standing floor-safety program pairing quarterly testing with real maintenance records is, in effect, evidence prepared in advance.