In their complaints, plaintiffs claim that defendants were “negligent,” “violated statutes,” and otherwise created a dangerous condition.  If plaintiffs cannot back up those statements with actual proof, their claims may fail.

In Adelman v. the Bristal at Lynbrook, et. al., plaintiff fell while entering the handicapped stall of a restroom with her walker.  She sued the building owners.  During her deposition, when asked what caused her to fall, plaintiff responded that she “just lost [her] balance.”  One of the defendant’s employees testified that when she found plaintiff after the accident, and asked what happened, plaintiff said she fell on her walker.

Defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis that plaintiff could not identify the cause of her fall.  In addition, they retained an expert that opined that the stall was ADA compliant.  In opposition, plaintiff stated that the stall door was not large enough to accommodate a standard sized walker, but provided no expert opinion to support that position.  Plaintiff also claimed that the defendants violated “statutory provisions,” without identifying any statutes.

The Court found that the defendants established their entitlement to summary judgment since plaintiff could not identify the cause of her fall without engaging in speculation. “In a premises liability case, a plaintiff’s inability to identify the cause of the accident is fatal to the cause of action because a finding that the defendant’s negligence, if any, proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries would be based on speculation.”

Just because an accident occurs does not mean that someone is liable.  A plaintiff’s inability to identify the cause of her accident, or back up allegations of non-compliance with statutory provisions is often fatal to the claim.