The victim must show those proofs to the hotel’s liability insurance provider. If that insurance provider has denied the victim’s claim, then the same proofs must be shown at the time of a scheduled trial.
The hotel was negligent.
The hotel had a duty of care towards its guest. It failed to uphold that duty of care.
The hotel’s negligence caused the slip and fall incident.
In presenting this proof, the victim should not feel restricted to the display of some action that produced a slippery surface on a section of the hotel’s floor. There are other ways that a guest might get pushed into a situation where he or she lacked the ability to stand up. Moreover, it could be that one of the hotel’s actions created that situation.
For instance, it could be that an automatic door at the entrance did not work properly. Maybe it started closing too soon, and then it hit an entering guest. Admittedly, the door-manufacturer could be blamed for the failure. Still that fact would not deprive the victim from suing the hotel.
One proof should result from presentation of what was learned, following an examination of the hotel’s policies. Did that policy acknowledge the need to check for possible hazards? Did it outline a method for maintaining a system of regular checks? If such a system had not been mentioned in the hotel’s policy, then that fact could add to the proofs of the facility’s negligence.
Was there any proof that members of the hotel staff knew about a potential hazard, but refused to undertake any action that could correct it? Did anyone try to limit the dangers posed by the hazardous object? If no one tried to limit the dangers, let alone get rid of them, then that fact could serve to underscore the level of the hotel’s negligence.
The victim did not contribute to creation of the slip and fall incident.
A personal injury lawyer in Huntsville for the hotel’s liability insurance provider might ask the victim/plaintiff to produce the footwear that he or she was wearing the day of the slip and fall incident. If the victim was wearing sturdy pair of shoes, then that would counter the veracity of any claim that the victim’s choice of footwear caused the accidental occurrence.
Had some area been cordoned-off? Did the victim venture into that area? If that were the case, then the lawyer for the liability insurance provider might have grounds for claiming that the victim had contributed to the fall. However, if the victim stepped on a space that had been cleaned and dried, one that was not cordoned-off in some way, then that fact would dim prospects for blaming the victim’s actions.