It's a scenario that plays out in countless grocery stores, convenience stores, even restaurants and fast food chains, around the country: A person slips on the floor, and a lawsuit springs up seemingly before the plaintiff even hits the ground. The classic slip-and-fall case is the claim that the store was negligent in allowing a dangerous condition to exist that caused the mishap.

Until recently, a plaintiff could prevail in a slip-and-fall case only if a store's employee caused the dangerous condition, and the store knew of the dangerous condition or should have known of the dangerous condition because it existed for a long time. The onus was on the plaintiff to prove that the store was at fault, which is no easy feat.

Lawyers for the defendant traditionally felt that as long as they had the store's sweep-log, they had enough ammunition to win the case. For the most part, particularly in Massachusetts, they were correct, as the courts almost always ruled on behalf of the defendant. Because of this, complacency tended to creep into the mindset of some attorneys and claim examiners, resulting in a lack of preparation that can potentially cause the client to fall victim to both large verdicts and bad publicity.