Your client fell on a staircase and the carrier is already telling you it was an unremarkable set of stairs your client simply misjudged. Before you accept that framing, get a tape measure and a level onto that stairway. Many stairway falls that read as clumsiness are the predictable result of a physical defect the owner was obligated to fix, and the defect is usually sitting there waiting to be documented. A building code violation premises case is different from a spilled-liquid case: the hazard does not evaporate, and the standard of care is written down.
The code defects that recur
Stairway and handrail falls cluster around a short list of measurable defects. Learn the categories and you will spot them on the first walk-through.
- Non-uniform riser and tread dimensions. Most adopted codes tolerate only a small variation between the tallest and shortest riser in a single flight, often around three-eighths of an inch. Human gait calibrates to the first few steps, so a single oddball riser causes a misstep.
- Missing or non-graspable handrails. A handrail exists to be gripped and arrest a fall. A wide decorative cap that a hand cannot close around does not satisfy the graspability requirement.
- Wrong handrail height. Codes specify a height band above the tread nosing. Rails set too low or too high defeat the biomechanics of catching yourself.
- Guardrail spacing. The classic sphere test, where a four-inch object should not pass through the balusters, catches falls and, in some matters, child entrapment.
- Inadequate stair illumination. Codes set minimum foot-candle levels at treads. A dim stairwell hides the very dimensional defects above.
Documenting the defect before it disappears
Owners repair stairs after a fall, sometimes within days, and a repaired stair is a lost case. Send a spoliation letter the moment you are retained, demanding the stairway be left intact and that inspection, maintenance, and repair records be held.
Then measure everything. Photograph each riser and tread with a scale in frame, log every dimension, shoot the handrail profile and height, and take light-meter readings at the treads. The defense will argue your client cannot recall the exact step, so document the entire flight so it does not matter which step failed.
Retaining the right expert
You generally want a licensed architect, a professional engineer, or a certified safety professional who works in stairway safety and knows the code editions in play. The expert does three things: identifies which adopted code governed at construction or alteration, measures the deviation, and ties the deviation to the mechanism of the fall through stair-safety biomechanics. A bare code deviation without a link to how your client actually went down invites a summary judgment motion on causation. Have the expert opine that the non-uniform riser, the missing graspable rail, or the darkness more likely than not caused the misstep and prevented the recovery.
Negligence per se versus evidence of negligence
Whether a code violation is negligence per se or merely evidence of negligence is jurisdiction-specific, and it changes how you plead. Many states treat violation of an adopted statute or ordinance designed to protect a class that includes your client as negligence per se, which can establish duty and breach as a matter of law and leave only causation and damages for the jury. Other states hold that violation of an administrative building code is only evidence of negligence the jury may weigh.
Check your controlling authority before you draft. If per se is available, plead it and move for a jury instruction. If only evidence of negligence is available, you still put the code in front of the jury as an objective yardstick, which is far stronger than an abstract argument about reasonableness. Either way, the code converts a fuzzy standard into a number.
Blunting open-and-obvious and comparative fault
The open-and-obvious defense argues the hazard was so apparent your client should have avoided it. Code proof cuts against it in two ways. First, dimensional defects like a non-uniform riser are by nature latent: a person cannot see a three-eighths-inch difference while walking. Second, many courts recognize that even an obvious condition can be unreasonably dangerous where the owner should anticipate harm despite the obviousness, and a code violation is strong proof the condition was unreasonable. Frame the missing graspable handrail not as something your client ignored but as a safety device the owner failed to provide.
On comparative fault, the code shifts the narrative from the plaintiff's inattention to the defendant's noncompliance. A jury told the owner violated a mandatory safety standard is less inclined to load fault onto someone who merely used the stairs as intended. Our sister coverage of premises and fall claims returns to this theme often, because objective standards move comparative-fault percentages.
Discovery that builds the record
The paper trail decides these cases as much as the tape measure. Target it early.
What to request
- Building permits and approved plans for the original construction and any later work on the stairway.
- Certificates of occupancy and all inspection records, including correction notices.
- Prior repair, maintenance, and complaint history for the stairs, which goes to notice.
- Incident reports for other falls at the same location, a frequent source of notice and pattern evidence.
If the owner altered the stairway, that alteration may have triggered a duty to bring the work up to current code, which defeats grandfathering. Reports of earlier falls establish the notice element and support a claim the danger was known and ignored.
Beating the grandfathering defense
The most common owner argument is that the stairway predates the current code, so no violation exists because codes are not retroactive. Do not concede it.
First, find the alteration trigger. Most codes require that when a structure is altered, repaired, or has its use changed, the affected work must comply with the code in effect at the time of that work. If the permit history or repair records show the stairs were reworked, the safe-harbor for legacy construction can evaporate for the altered portion. This is why the permit and repair discovery above matters so much.
Second, remember that code compliance is a floor, not a ceiling. A property owner's common-law duty to maintain reasonably safe premises exists independent of any code. Even a grandfathered stair can be a dangerous condition if it is unlit, worn, or missing a graspable rail. Plead the dangerous-condition theory alongside the code theory so a grandfathering ruling does not sink the whole case. Reviewing recent verdict and settlement reporting in your jurisdiction will show how local juries weigh code proof against these defenses, and analogous design-defect reasoning can sharpen the causation argument that a foreseeable misuse was baked into the hazard.
The through-line is simple. A stairway fall handled as a generic slip case is a coin flip. The same fall handled as a documented code violation, with measurements, an expert, and permit discovery, becomes a case about an owner who ignored a written safety standard.