Property owners in Oklahoma slip and fall cases commonly raise five defenses: comparative negligence, lack of notice, the open and obvious doctrine, the recreational use statute, and trespasser status. Under Oklahoma’s modified comparative negligence rule (23 O.S. § 13), a claimant more than 50% at fault recovers nothing.
If you were injured in an Oklahoma City slip and fall case on someone else’s property, you may be able to pursue a premises liability claim against the property owner or business. Falls are one of the most common sources of unintentional injury nationally, per the CDC’s national fall-injury data, and property owners and their insurers have a standard set of defenses they raise to avoid or limit paying for them.
Comparative Negligence
The most common defense in Oklahoma slip and fall cases is comparative negligence. The property owner argues the injured person was partially or fully responsible for the fall through their own carelessness.
Property owners typically argue one of the following:
- The hazard was open and obvious, and the claimant failed to notice it while distracted.
- The claimant wore footwear unsuited to the conditions, such as worn-tread sandals in the rain.
- The claimant walked past a visible warning sign and encountered the hazard anyway.
- The claimant entered an area not open to customers, such as a restricted kitchen or stockroom.
The second and third arguments overlap with a related concept, voluntarily encountering a known danger, though Oklahoma courts generally analyze it within the same comparative-fault framework rather than as a separate, complete bar to recovery.
If a jury finds the claimant partially at fault, the recovery is reduced in proportion to that share of fault under 23 O.S. § 14. Once the claimant’s own fault outweighs the property owner’s, Oklahoma’s modified comparative negligence rule (23 O.S. § 13, cited above) bars recovery entirely, a threshold commonly called the 50% rule. a lawyer experienced in these property-owner disputes can help make sure fault gets assigned to the right party. For a closer look at how this defense plays out in practice, see a full breakdown of the comparative-fault defense.
Lack of Notice
Property owners also argue they had no actual or constructive notice of the hazard. To be liable, the owner must have known, or reasonably should have known, about the danger and failed to fix it or warn visitors within a reasonable time.
Oklahoma law does not set a fixed time requirement for how long a hazard must exist before notice attaches. Owners commonly argue that the hazard appeared too close in time to the accident to have been discovered, that it was not detectable through a reasonable inspection, or that normal maintenance and inspection routines were being followed. A common example is a drink spilled at a restaurant buffet moments before another customer slips in it.
Oklahoma case law on notice
- Lingerfelt v. Winn-Dixie Texas, Inc. held that a storekeeper can be liable for a dangerous condition created by an employee if it existed long enough for the owner to have discovered and removed it through ordinary care.
- Rogers v. Hennessee held that a property owner cannot be held responsible unless notice, or facts amounting to notice, existed in time to remove the hazard or warn of it.
- Town of Okemah v. Lindsey held that whether notice existed, and whether the owner’s response was reasonable, are ordinarily questions for the jury.
For more on how claimants meet this burden, see how injured claimants prove an owner had notice.
Open and Obvious Doctrine
The open and obvious doctrine is related to comparative negligence. A property owner generally has no duty to warn of or protect visitors from a hazard that would be obvious to a reasonable person, such as a brightly colored spill on a light floor or a large pothole in a parking lot.
The doctrine has limits. Oklahoma courts have held that a landowner may still owe a duty to warn or protect an invitee even from an open and obvious hazard if the injury was reasonably foreseeable, since an owner should sometimes anticipate that a visitor’s attention will be elsewhere.
Oklahoma case law on the doctrine
- McClendon v. McCall held that a landowner may still owe a duty to warn of, or otherwise protect an invitee from, an open and obvious hazard if the injury was reasonably foreseeable.
- Shank v. Whiting-Turner Contracting Co. reached the same conclusion: foreseeability of the injury can preserve a duty even where the hazard was visible.
Whether a condition truly was open and obvious, and whether the injury was foreseeable anyway, are both fact questions for a jury. See how courts weigh the open-and-obvious defense for a more detailed walkthrough.
Recreational Use Statute
Oklahoma’s recreational use statute limits liability for landowners who open their property to the public for outdoor recreation, such as hunting, fishing, hiking, or camping, free of charge. Under 76 O.S. § 10.1, a qualifying owner owes no duty of care to keep the land safe for entry or use, and no duty to warn of hazardous conditions, structures, or activities.
The immunity has real limits. It does not apply if the owner charges admission, or usually does, or if commercial activity is conducted on the property, and it never protects an owner from liability for deliberate, willful, or malicious conduct.
Trespasser Liability
If the claimant was trespassing when the injury occurred, the property owner generally owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe or to warn of dangerous conditions. Under 76 O.S. § 16.1, this immunity covers simple negligence for unauthorized or criminal entry, but not willful, wanton, or malicious conduct or gross negligence. 76 O.S. § 80 adds that a landowner who knows or reasonably should know a trespasser is present still owes a duty not to injure that person through a wanton or intentional act, with a narrower duty applying where a child trespasser is hurt by a highly dangerous artificial condition on the land. Both sections sit within Title 76 of the Oklahoma Statutes, which the state’s official statutes portal organizes by title number alongside every other Oklahoma title.
Oklahoma law has long barred landowners from deliberately setting a trap for trespassers, such as rigging a hidden device to cause injury, rather than simply failing to fix a hazard.
Frequently Asked Slip and Fall Defenses Questions
Can a property owner be held liable if the hazard was open and obvious?
Yes. Even an open and obvious hazard can support liability if the injury was reasonably foreseeable to the landowner. Whether a condition counts as open and obvious is itself usually a jury question, which can carry a case past summary judgment.
What happens if I was partially at fault for the fall?
Your recovery is reduced in proportion to your share of fault. If your fault is found greater than the property owner’s, Oklahoma’s 50% rule bars recovery entirely.
Who decides whether the property owner had notice of the hazard?
Notice, and whether the owner’s response was reasonable, are ordinarily jury questions. Security camera footage from the property is often the most direct evidence of how long a hazard existed.
Does a warning sign protect the property owner?
Sometimes, but a sign has to be visible, unobstructed, and placed where visitors approaching from any direction could reasonably see it. A sign hidden from the direction you were walking does not necessarily clear the owner of liability.
What if my fall happened on government property?
Claims against government property owners follow different rules and much shorter deadlines. Written notice usually has to reach the correct government entity quickly, and notice deadlines that apply on government-owned property can bar a claim before it starts if missed.
How long do I have to file a slip and fall lawsuit in Oklahoma?
Most Oklahoma slip and fall lawsuits must be filed within two years of the accident, though a claim against a government entity generally requires written notice within just one year. See the full filing-deadline rules for Oklahoma fall claims for exceptions, and every damages category available in a fall claim, from medical bills to lost wages and pain and suffering.
Talk to an Oklahoma City Slip and Fall Attorney
Property owners and their insurers raise these defenses often, and a defense that sounds airtight in an adjuster’s letter does not always hold up once the facts are developed. Hasbrook & Hasbrook reviews slip and fall claims property owners are already disputing, and can help you understand what these defenses could mean for your claim’s value. Call 405-605-2426 or tell us about the defenses raised against your fall claim.
