Stairway falls produce serious injuries and, unlike many premises cases, often come with objective evidence that no one can argue about: a tape measure. Riser height variation, tread depth, handrail height, and lighting can all be measured and compared to code. The challenge is knowing which code applies, how to show causation, and how to deal with defense arguments about the plaintiff's own footing.
Why Stairs Are Different
People learn the rhythm of a staircase within a couple of steps. A step that varies from the others in height by even a fraction of an inch can disrupt that rhythm, particularly when descending, and human factors literature has long emphasized the importance of uniformity. Building codes reflect this by limiting the maximum variation between the tallest and shortest riser in a flight and between treads. That focus on consistency makes riser and tread measurements central to the case.
Which Code Governs?
Start with the date of construction and any renovations. The code that applies is typically the edition in force when the staircase was built or last substantially altered, not the one in force at the time of the fall. Many jurisdictions adopt model codes such as the International Building Code or International Residential Code with local amendments, and older buildings may be governed by prior editions or legacy local codes. Obtain permit records, certificates of occupancy, and inspection files from the building department. If the stairs were altered without a permit, the argument for applying current requirements strengthens.
Compliance with the code is not always dispositive. In many states, a code violation is evidence of negligence or negligence per se, while compliance is evidence of due care but does not end the inquiry. Prepare for both situations: if the stairs violated code, press that; if they met code, develop the evidence of other hazards, such as worn nosings, slippery finishes, or poor lighting.
The Measurements That Matter
Retain an expert, such as a licensed architect, building code consultant, or human factors engineer, to inspect the site promptly. Photograph and measure each step in the flight. Key data points include:
- Riser height of each step, and the difference between the highest and lowest in the flight.
- Tread depth and any variation, measured consistently from nosing to nosing.
- Nosing projection and edge condition, including any worn, rounded, or broken edges.
- Handrail height, graspability, continuity, and extension at the top and bottom, as well as guard height at open sides.
- Slip resistance of treads, tested by a qualified person using appropriate equipment and methods.
- Illumination levels, including in the area of the first and last step, and whether lighting was functioning at the time.
- Visual cues, such as contrast striping, patterns, or flooring that blends treads together.
Do not rely on a single measurement. Repeat measurements, document the method, and preserve photographs with scale references. If repair is likely, ask for an inspection before changes occur or negotiate a stipulation for preservation of the condition. Subsequent repairs may be inadmissible to prove negligence in many jurisdictions, but they destroy the physical evidence.
Causation: Connect the Defect to the Fall
A code violation is not enough on its own. The plaintiff must show that the violation caused the fall. Build the causal link by reconstructing the plaintiff's gait and foot placement, with attention to which step was involved and what happened. Witness testimony, surveillance video, and the plaintiff's footwear can help. A biomechanical or human factors expert can explain why a particular irregularity would cause a misstep, such as an unexpectedly short riser causing a toe catch or a missing handrail extension eliminating a chance to arrest a fall.
Handrail cases involve a second causation step: showing that a compliant handrail would have allowed the plaintiff to recover. Expert testimony on arm reach and grip, along with the plaintiff's description of where they reached, is useful.
Notice and Responsibility
For structural defects, such as a permanent riser variance, constructive notice is easier to establish than with transient hazards, because the condition existed for a long time. Even so, defendants will argue they had no actual notice and that no prior falls occurred. Ask for prior incident reports, complaints, inspection records, and maintenance logs. In a multi-tenant building, determine who controlled the stairway, which may be the landlord, a management company, or a tenant. Our premises liability coverage examines these control questions in more detail, particularly in shared-space settings.
If the staircase was built or altered by a contractor, consider the builder or designer as potential defendants where limitation and repose periods permit. Construction defect statutes of repose may bar claims against builders after a number of years, so evaluate that quickly.
Defense Themes
- Open and obvious. Stairs are visible, but a small variation in height may not be. Argue that the hazard was not apparent even to a careful user.
- Plaintiff distraction or footwear. Surveillance and testimony can address this, but prepare your client.
- Compliance with code at time of construction. Respond with evidence of deterioration, alteration, or failure to maintain.
- Pre-existing conditions. Particularly for orthopedic injuries in older plaintiffs. Medical records and treating physician opinions on mechanism are key.
Finally, consider how stair cases fit with other claims. Falls on stairs in workplace settings may involve comp exclusivity issues, discussed in our workers' compensation section. Whatever the setting, the measurements usually tell the story if you collect them early and carefully.