$______ VERDICT - CONSTRUCTION SITE NEGLIGENCE - COLLAPSE OF TEMPORARY STAIRCASE - SHOULDER FRACTURE - CONCUSSION - NECK AND BACK INJURIES WITH RADICULOPATHY - NERVE ABLATION.

• Pages: 7-8

The jury found the defendant construction company

40% negligent and the drywall subcontractor 40%

negligent. The second defendant drywall subcontrac-

tor (hired by the first drywall subcontractor) was found

20% negligent. The plaintiff was awarded $2,500,000

in damages, and his wife was awarded $500,000 for

a total verdict of $3,000,000. Post-trial motions are

currently pending.

REFERENCE

Plaintiff’s orthopedic surgery expert: Charles Getz

from Philadelphia, PA. Plaintiff’s physical medicine/

rehabilitation expert: Guy Fried from Philadelphia,

PA.

White vs. Drywall, Inc., et al. Case no. 130603238;

Judge Kenneth Powell, 06-25-15.

Attorneys for plaintiff: Joseph L. Messa, Jr. and

Jenimae Almquist of Messa & Associates in

Philadelphia, PA.

COMMENTARY

The plaintiff’s credibility became a central focus of the trial, as the

defense attempted to establish that the plaintiff himself had re-

moved portions of the staircase support and caused the collapse.

However, the plaintiff was apparently well-received and believed

by the Philadelphia jury hearing the case as no negligence was as-

sessed against him. The plaintiff’s counsel was able to show that

the stairs in question had been unstable for some time prior to the

incident and had, in fact, been the subject of numerous complaints

by various other workers at the site.

The general contractor was dismissed on a workers’ compensation

bar, leaving the plaintiff to establish liability against the company

who installed the stairs, as well as the drywall subcontractors. In

this regard, an important witness (a construction supervisor) testi-

fied that the stairs were noticeably more unstable on the first day

he returned to the work site after the drywall had been installed.

This testimony dove-tailed perfectly into the plaintiff’s claim that

part of the stairs had been removed for installation of the drywall,

and the stairs were not re-secured.

The case was tried over the course of two weeks and the jury delib-

erated for most of one day, before returning the $3,000,000 verdict

for the plaintiffs.

$1,149,000 VERDICT – CIVIL RIGHTS ACT – TITLE VII VIOLATION – HOSTILE WORK

ENVIRONMENT AT PITTSBURGH CASINO – PLAINTIFF ASSAULTED BY PATRON –

PATRONPERMITTEDBACKINTOCASINO–EMOTIONALINJURIES.

U.S. District Court, Western, Pennsylvania

This action was brought under Title VII of the

Federal Civil Rights Act and the Pennsylvania’s

Human Relations Act, against the Pittsburgh

casino where the plaintiff works as a cocktail

waitress. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant

subjected her to sexual harassment and a hostile

work environment by failing to protect her from a

customer who had sexually assaulted her at work.

She sought punitive as well as compensatory

damages from the defendant. The defendant

maintained that it had addressed the issue by

banning the customer from the casino for a period

of 40 days.

The plaintiff has been employed as a cocktail wait-

ress for the defendant since February 1, 2010. She

claimed that one of the defendant’s customers put

his hand down her shirt, placed a casino chip in her

bra, and made contact with her breast while she was

working.

The plaintiff testified that she notified a casino supervi-

sor of the incident and was subsequently interviewed

by the state police. The plaintiff testified that she de-

clined to press assault charges against the customer

because she was advised that the customer would

be banned for life from the casino and she would not

have to see him again.

However, the customer – a signature card member

at the casino – was not banned, according to the

plaintiff. The plaintiff showed that the defendant lifted

the ban several weeks after the incident occurred,

and allowed the offending customer to return to the

casino. She testified that she was unaware that the

ban had been lifted, and she unexpectedly encoun-

tered the customer during her shift.

The plaintiff alleged that the customer, as well as

some of her co-workers, questioned whether she was

telling the truth about the incident. She claimed that

the customer, his friends, and his family ridiculed her

in public, constituting sexual harassment and creat-

ing a hostile work environment. The plaintiff also

claimed that the defendant violated its own policy

against sexual harassment by allowing the offending

customer to return to the casino.

The plaintiff claimed emotional injuries as a result of

her treatment at work, including panic attacks and

anxiety, which required psychological treatment.

The defendant argued that it appropriately dealt with

the customer’s infraction by banning him from the

casino for 40 days.

The jury found for the plaintiff in the amount of

$1,149,000. The award included $150,000 in com-

pensatory damages, and $999,000 in punitive

damages.

REFERENCE

Pelesky vs. Rivers Casino and Holdings Acquisition

Company, L.P. Case no. 2:14-CV-01542; Judge Ar-

thur J. Schwab, 08-13-15.

Attorney for plaintiff: W. Timothy Barry of Thomas

Barry & Associates in Pittsburgh, PA.

SUMMARIES WITH TRIAL ANALYSIS 7

Pennsylvania Jury Verdict Review & Analysis

Subscribe Now