When Property Owners Know About Hazards but Fail to Act: The Investigation Behind a Million Dollar Slip and Fall Recovery
A restaurant owner’s admission that he knew the floors were dangerously slippery—but didn’t fix them—led to a catastrophic hamstring injury requiring two surgeries.
An Ordinary Dinner Out
In November of 2021, our client, an almost 60-year-old active woman, went to dinner at Farfalla Trattoria in Westlake Village. She had been to the restaurant before and had noticed something concerning: the floors were unusually slippery.
Many people would recognize this kind of hazard and simply be more careful. Our client was cautious. But on this particular evening, despite her care, she slipped on the excessively slippery flooring and fell in an involuntary split position.
The pain was immediate and severe. A waitress brought ice and, tellingly, acknowledged that the floors “could be slippery.” Our client’s hamstring had completely torn from the bone—an injury that would require not one, but two major surgeries and would permanently alter her active lifestyle.
What makes this case particularly significant isn’t just the severity of the injury. It’s what the restaurant owner would later admit: he knew the floors were dangerously slippery, but he “did not know how to fix them.”
The Legal Significance of Known Hazards
In premises liability law, property owners owe a duty of care to their invitees—people who enter their property for business purposes, like restaurant patrons. This duty includes maintaining the property in a reasonably safe condition and either fixing known hazards or providing adequate warnings about them.
But not all premises liability cases involve known hazards. Often, the central dispute is whether the property owner knew or should have known about the dangerous condition. Did they have notice? How long had the hazard existed? Was it obvious or hidden?
This case was different. This wasn’t a question of whether the owner should have known about the slippery floors. The owner admitted he knew. The waitress acknowledged it at the scene. Our client herself had noticed the problem on previous visits.
The issue wasn’t knowledge—it was the failure to act on that knowledge.
The Injury and Initial Surgery
When our client fell in that involuntary split position, she suffered a complete tear of her right proximal hamstring tendon. This is a severe orthopedic injury where the hamstring muscle—the large muscle group running down the back of the thigh—tears completely away from its attachment point at the ischial tuberosity (the sit bone in the pelvis).
Before this injury, our client was an active tennis player who enjoyed an energetic lifestyle. The hamstring is crucial for walking, running, climbing stairs, and virtually any athletic activity. A complete tear requires surgical intervention.
Twenty days after the fall, Dr. Michael Brian Banffy, an orthopedic surgeon at the prestigious Kerlan-Jobe Surgery Center, performed surgery to reattach the hamstring tendon to the ischial tuberosity. The surgery involved anchoring the torn tendon back to the bone, followed by an extensive rehabilitation process.
Our client worked diligently through physical therapy, hoping to regain her pre-injury function and return to the activities she loved.
When the First Surgery Isn’t Enough
Despite the initial surgery and months of rehabilitation, our client continued experiencing problems. By December 2023—more than two years after the injury—she was having worsening symptoms: snapping sensations in her hip, posterior hip pain, and functional limitations.
An MRI revealed the troubling news: a high-grade partial re-tear with fluid accumulation. The initial surgical repair had not held. The hamstring was tearing again.
This is one of the cruel realities of severe tendon injuries. Even with successful initial surgery, the repair can fail over time, particularly in active individuals who are trying to return to their normal activities. The re-tear wasn’t due to any fault of our client or her surgeon—it was a consequence of the severity of the original injury caused by the fall.
In February of the following year, Dr. Banffy performed a revision surgery. This second procedure was more complex, involving not just repair of the re-torn hamstring but also nerve neurolysis (releasing compressed nerves) and ischial bursectomy (removing an inflamed bursa). The fact that nerve involvement had developed showed how the original injury had created cascading complications.
Even after the revision surgery, our client continued experiencing significant pain (rated 7 out of 10), snapping sensations, numbness, and hamstring weakness requiring the use of crutches. The injury that began with a slip on a restaurant floor had become a chronic, life-altering condition requiring ongoing orthopedic monitoring and potential additional surgery in the future.
The Impact on an Active Life
Numbers and medical terminology only tell part of the story. The real impact of this injury was on our client’s quality of life.
Before the fall, she was an avid tennis player. Tennis requires explosive leg movements, quick directional changes, and powerful hamstring function for serving and baseline play. After two surgeries and ongoing hamstring dysfunction, she can still play tennis—but at a significantly diminished level and with a persistent fear of re-injury.
That fear is not irrational. She has already experienced one re-tear. She knows that her hamstring attachment is permanently compromised. Every time she steps on a tennis court, she’s aware of the limitations and risks that didn’t exist before November 2021.
Beyond tennis, the injury affected her overall active lifestyle. Activities that require hamstring strength and stability—hiking, climbing stairs, even simply walking for extended periods—became more difficult and painful. Two major surgeries, extended rehabilitation periods, and the psychological impact of chronic pain and permanent impairment took their toll.
Building the Liability Case
While our client’s medical journey was complex, the liability aspect of this case was remarkably clear—though that didn’t mean the defendants admitted fault.
We had several powerful pieces of evidence:
The Owner’s Admission: During the litigation process, the restaurant owner admitted that he knew the floors were slippery but stated he “did not know how to fix them.” This admission was devastating to the defense. It established actual knowledge of the hazard and an acknowledgment that no corrective action had been taken.
The Waitress’s Statement: At the scene, immediately after the fall, a waitress acknowledged that the floors “could be slippery.” This contemporaneous admission, made before any litigation was contemplated, corroborated that the hazard was known to restaurant staff.
The Remedial Measure: Perhaps most tellingly, after our client’s fall, the restaurant covered the slippery area with carpet. This post-incident remedial measure demonstrated two critical facts: first, that a simple solution to the slippery floor problem existed and was readily available; and second, that the restaurant recognized the need to address the hazard after someone was seriously injured.
While evidence of remedial measures is generally not admissible to prove negligence (because the law wants to encourage property owners to fix hazards without fear that fixing them will be used against them), such evidence can be relevant to show that a safer alternative design was feasible. The fact that the restaurant could simply install carpet to address the problem undermined any claim that they “did not know how to fix” the slippery floors.
Medical Causation: We also retained Dr. Mark Ganjianpour, a Qualified Medical Examiner, who confirmed that the slip and fall directly caused the hamstring tear. This expert opinion established the causal link between the defendant’s negligence and our client’s catastrophic injury.
Despite this overwhelming evidence, the defendants initially denied all liability. This is not uncommon in premises liability cases—even when the evidence is strongly against them, defendants and their insurance carriers often refuse to accept responsibility until faced with the prospect of trial.
The Path to Settlement
With clear liability evidence, comprehensive medical documentation of two surgeries and ongoing complications, expert testimony on causation, and proof of significant impact on our client’s quality of life, we prepared the case for trial scheduled for September 23, 2025.
The case settled in March 2025 for $1 million—a substantial recovery that reflected the severity of our client’s injuries, the need for two major surgeries, the permanent functional impairment, the ongoing medical needs, and perhaps most significantly, the defendant’s clear knowledge of the hazard and failure to address it.
The settlement provided our client with compensation for her past and future medical expenses, her pain and suffering through two surgeries and ongoing chronic pain, and the permanent loss of her ability to enjoy the active lifestyle she had before stepping into that restaurant.
The Responsibility of Property Owners
This case illustrates a fundamental principle of premises liability: knowing about a hazard and failing to fix it is not acceptable.
Property owners—whether they operate restaurants, retail stores, apartment complexes, or any other business—have a legal duty to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition. When they become aware of a dangerous condition, they must either:
- Fix the hazard
- Provide adequate warnings about it
- Close off access to the dangerous area
Saying “I didn’t know how to fix it” is not a defense when simple solutions exist. In this case, the restaurant eventually installed carpet to address the slippery floors—a straightforward remediation that could have been implemented before our client’s catastrophic injury.
The law imposes this duty because property owners are in the best position to identify and address hazards on their premises. Customers entering a restaurant should not have to wonder whether the floors are safe to walk on. They should not have to conduct their own safety inspections or assume the risk that the owner knows about a hazard but hasn’t bothered to fix it.
When property owners fail in this duty and someone is seriously injured as a result, they must be held accountable. That accountability serves two purposes: it compensates the injured person for their losses, and it incentivizes property owners to take safety seriously and address known hazards promptly.
Premises Liability Representation in California
At Adamson Ahdoot, we handle premises liability cases throughout California, from Westlake Village to Los Angeles and beyond. We represent clients who have been injured due to dangerous property conditions, including slip and falls, inadequate security, poor maintenance, and other hazardous conditions.
Premises liability cases require thorough investigation to establish what the property owner knew, when they knew it, and what they did (or failed to do) about it. They require comprehensive medical documentation, particularly in cases where injuries require multiple surgeries or result in permanent impairment. They demand expert testimony on both causation and the standard of care for property maintenance.
Most importantly, they require holding property owners accountable when they know about hazards but fail to protect their customers, tenants, or visitors.
When property owners have actual knowledge of dangerous conditions—when they admit they know the floors are slippery, when their employees acknowledge the hazard, when they take corrective action only after someone is injured—they cannot escape responsibility for the harm their negligence causes.
When You’re Injured on Someone Else’s Property
If you’ve been injured due to a dangerous condition on someone else’s property, several factors will be important to your case:
- Whether the property owner knew or should have known about the hazard
- How long the dangerous condition existed
- Whether the hazard was obvious or hidden
- What warnings, if any, were provided
- Whether the property owner took any steps to address the hazard
- The severity and permanence of your injuries
- The impact on your life, work, and activities
In cases involving known hazards—where there is evidence that the property owner was aware of the danger but failed to fix it—the liability case can be particularly strong. But even with clear liability, proving the full extent of damages, particularly when injuries require multiple surgeries or result in permanent limitations, requires comprehensive medical documentation and expert testimony.
Your case deserves thorough investigation and vigorous advocacy to ensure that property owners are held accountable for maintaining safe premises.
About Adamson Ahdoot LLP
Adamson Ahdoot LLP is a personal injury law firm based in Los Angeles, serving clients throughout California. Our attorneys handle premises liability cases, slip and fall injuries, and catastrophic injury matters requiring comprehensive investigation and expert collaboration.
Contact us for a free consultation:
Phone: (866) 645-4992
Website: aa.law
Address: 1122 S. La Cienega Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90035
