$______ RECOVERY - MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE - PARKING LOT COLLISION - PLAINTIFF DRIVER COLLIDES WITH DEFENDANT DRIVER WHO FAILS TO STOP AT STOP SIGN IN SHOPPING CENTER PARKING LOT - CERVICAL AND LUMBAR HERNIATIONS - LUMBAR FUSION WITH EXTENSIVE HARDWARE.

• Pages: 9-10

$3,700,000 RECOVERY – LANDLORD NEGLIGENCE – PLAINTIFF TENANT WITH DOWN

SYNDROME FALLS DOWN SEVERAL INTERIOR STEPS AND STRIKES WALL, SUFFERING

HAIRLINE SKULL FRACTURE AND SUBDURAL HEMATOMA – COGNITIVE DEFICITS

DEPRIVE PLAINTIFF OF ABILITY TO SHOP AND DO LAUNDRY INDEPENDENTLY.

Middlesex County, NJ

This action involved a plaintiff tenant,

approximately age 60, who contended that the

defendant landlord negligently failed to repair

interior steps leading to the laundry room. The

plaintiff contended that as a result, he tripped and

fell several steps as he was descending, striking

his head on the adjacent wall. The plaintiff

asserted that he suffered a hairline skull fracture

that caused subdural hematoma that resulted in

significant cognitive deficits. The defendant

denied that the condition of the steps was related

to the fall.

The plaintiff suffered from Down syndrome and main-

tained that prior to the accident, he was relatively in-

dependent, could go shopping and perform his

laundryandthatheisnolongerabletodoso,de

-

pending on his brother and sister-in-law with whom he

lived before the fall occurred. The defendant main-

tained that the fall was caused by a stroke and

pointed out that some five treating physicians at the

hospital detected signs of a stroke. The plaintiff’s ex-

pert neuroradiologist concluded that the films

showed contusions caused by the fall and did not re-

flect that he suffered a stroke before the incident.

The plaintiff maintained that the steps contained bro-

ken up concrete. The plaintiff would have presented

an expert biomechanical engineer who would have

concluded that based on factors, including where

the plaintiff landed and the positioning of his body, it

was highly likely that he fell from one of the steps in

disrepair. The plaintiff also used an animation that the

plaintiff’s expert would have explained illustrated his

conclusions and the plaintiff would have argued that

his conclusions should be accepted.

During the deposition of the plaintiff’s treating physi-

cians, who had read the films as showing a stroke, 2

of the 5 ultimately conceded that the plaintiff’s

neuroradiologist, who is considered renowned, was

correct in his interpretation that the plaintiff had, in

actuality, suffered contusions as a result of the

trauma and not a stroke that preceded the fall. The

plaintiff would have further argued that the jury should

consider that in view of the preexisting mental com-

promise, the plaintiff’s remaining abilities was espe-

cially important and that t he loss of enjoyment of life

was extensive.

Plaintiff’s counsel relates that the referral to him was

made shortly before the Statute of Limitations would

have run.

The case settled prior to trial for $3,700,000.

REFERENCE

Higgins vs. Sky-Top Gardens. 03-22.

Attorney for plaintiff: Barry R. Eichen of Eichen

Crutchlow Zaslow, LLP in Edison, NJ.

COMMENTARY

The defendant had denied that the condition of the steps was re-

lated to the fall and pointed out that the 5 physicians in the hospi-

tal had diagnosed a stroke. The plaintiff, who overcame this

position, and who claimed that the alleged signs of stroke were, in

reality, contusions caused by the fall itself, argued that the creden-

tials of the plaintiff’s neuroradiologist, were excellent and the

plaintiff ultimately elicited testimony from treating physicians that

the contusions were caused by the fall and not a stroke. Finally, the

plaintiff would have also pointed to the testimony of a

biomechanical engineer who would have testified that based upon

the positioning of the body, and the area of defect, it was clear that

the defect on the steps caused the fall.

$1,000,000 RECOVERY – MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE – PARKING LOT COLLISION –

PLAINTIFF DRIVER COLLIDES WITH DEFENDANT DRIVER WHO FAILS TO STOP AT

STOP SIGN IN SHOPPING CENTER PARKING LOT – CERVICAL AND LUMBAR

HERNIATIONS – LUMBAR FUSION WITH EXTENSIVE HARDWARE.

Bergen County, NJ

In this motor vehicle negligence action, the 52-

year-old plaintiff driver contended that as she was

driving in a shopping center parking lot, the

defendant driver negligently failed to stop at a

stop sign at the end of an aisle, causing the

accident. The plaintiff maintained that as a result,

she sustained 2 cervical and 2 lumbar herniations

necessitating lumbar fusion surgery with extensive

hardware after having had conservative care and

injections. The plaintiff asserted that she will

suffer permanent pain and limitations. The

plaintiff had the lumbar fusion approximately one

year after the injections. The defendant would

have maintained that the plaintiff failed to make

adequate observations and was comparatively

negligent.

The plaintiff did not initially believe that she was in-

jured and so told the investigating officer. Approxi-

mately one week later, she visited a chiropractor who

9

National Jury Verdict Review & Analysis

Subscribe Now