Suppose that you slip and fall and injure yourself when leaving a restaurant at night. The stairwell is poorly maintained, and as you’re using the railing to balance yourself while going down the stairs, the railing loosens, and you lose your balance, causing you to fall.

The stairwell is a dangerous condition of property. It poses an unreasonable risk of harm when used in the manner in which you did (i.e., using the railings as support). Had you used the railing in an unforeseeable manner (i.e., pushing and pulling against it violently while walking down the stairs), then it will be a lot more difficult to prove that the condition was dangerous.

Now, property owners can only be held liable if they were aware or should have been aware of the dangerous condition.

The property owner in the above example could argue that they were simply unaware of the dangerous condition. You could counter this defense by introducing evidence that they did know about the dangerous condition. Perhaps there were previous slip and fall accidents involving the railing or related customer complaints.

Alternatively, you could show that the restaurant owner did not inspect their property as frequently as expected of the restaurant industry. This might qualify as negligence. Had a property inspection occurred prior to your injury, the dangerous condition could have been discovered and corrected.