Despite the great effort by the majority of shops and commercial premises to prevent the same conditions arise that could be dangerous for consumers and users, the truth is that many times accidents occur mainly in the form of falls. Possible causes could be the same note, for example, the presence of raised floor tiles, sliding surfaces, puddles of weak cold storage or even the fact of having recently cleaned the floor without warning with sufficient intensity. We all have to some extent the idea that in one such case, the owners of that area should address the payment of compensation to the victim (often these are elderly people who suffer serious consequences due to fall). But, what is the legal basis for it? That is none other than the so-called tort principle that binds us and makes them responsible for the results of our own performances. Thus, any institution open to the public should provide minimum security conditions allow to prevent any accidents and mishaps that may suffer from its customers.

Failure to fulfill this obligation, these centers would be forced to deal with compensation to their customers. But this would require, in advance, raise questions that will determine whether fault or not attended by the business: 1. Was it negligent to the owner of the establishment in ensuring the security of it? 2. Was the customer wants, through its own actions (eg, through an oversight) might be causing his own downfall and its aftermath have exacerbated harmful? 3. Was there a glaring signal to warn of the dangers present in this place? Of all these elements can be determined if any financial compensation for damages. Obviously, the evidence that could fall victim to submit be vital at the time of ratifying its position before the courts, in the case could not be reached a court settlement to the conflict. Essentially could be used as evidence the medical reports, statements of potential witnesses or even (to take the case more complex) expert reports that could shed light on the matter.