$______ VERDICT - PREMISES LIABILITY - FALL DOWN - PLAINTIFF DOCTOR SLIPS AND FALLS ON ICE IN EMPLOYEE PARKING LOT OF BUILDING WHERE HE WORKED; OWNED, CONTROLLED AND MAINTAINED BY DEFENDANTS - HIP PROSTHETIC FRACTURE - MENISCUS TEAR - SURGERIES - OSTEOMYELITIS - SEPTIC SHOCK - PERMANENT DISABILITY.

• Pages: 2-2

Featured Cases

$4,700,000 VERDICT – PREMISES LIABILITY – FALL DOWN – PLAINTIFF DOCTOR SLIPS

AND FALLS ON ICE IN EMPLOYEE PARKING LOT OF BUILDING WHERE HE WORKED;

OWNED, CONTROLLED AND MAINTAINED BY DEFENDANTS – HIP PROSTHETIC

FRACTURE – MENISCUS TEAR – SURGERIES – OSTEOMYELITIS – SEPTIC SHOCK –

PERMANENT DISABILITY.

Allegheny County, PA

The plaintiff in this premises liability action

maintained he suffered catastrophic lower

extremity injuries when he slipped and fell on ice

in a parking lot owned controlled and maintained

by the defendants. The plaintiff was arriving for

work as a family doctor and attempting to enter

the building when the incident occurred. The

defendants denied all allegations of negligence

and injury.

On January 4, 2018, the male plaintiff doctor exited

his vehicle at his office and attempted to gain en-

trance into his office building when he slipped and fell

on ice causing catastrophic injuries which have left

him permanently disabled. The plaintiff claimed that

the ice in the parking lot was unavoidable, not readily

detectable and there was no alternative route for the

plaintiff to walk in order to access the building. The

plaintiff maintained that the defendants breached

their duty of care to keep the premises reasonably

safe and free from hazards, failed to maintain the pre-

mises in a safe condition, failed to clear the premises

of ice and snow and failed to ensure that the pre-

mises was equipped with adequate drainage so as to

avoid the collection of ice and snow throughout the

parking lot.

As a result of the fall the plaintiff sustained

periprosthetic fracture of the right hip, hematoma of

the right hip, right hip injury and pain, trochanteric

avulsion fracture of the right femur, medial meniscus

tear of the left knee and left and right lower extremity

pain. The plaintiff underwent a right total hip

arthroplasty and left knee arthroscopy. The plaintiff sus-

tained post-surgical complications including septic

shock, infection of the right prosthetic hip joint and

seroma of the musculoskeletal structure. He continues

to have difficulties with the activities of daily life and is

unable to continue his employment as a doctor.

All defendants denied all liability and maintained that

the property was properly treated but due to melting

and refreezing the possibility of ice patches on that

date existed. The defendants argued that the plaintiff

failed to avoid the slippery condition if any existed.

The defendants denied that the plaintiff had to retire

due to his injuries and argue that he has made a satis-

factory recovery from his injuries.

The jury found all of the defendants negligent. The

jury did not find any comparative negligence on the

part of the plaintiff. The jury apportioned liability at

70% against Banksville and 30% against snow and

ice management company and awarded the plain-

tiff damages in the amount of $4,700,000. Post-trial

motions are pending.

REFERENCE

Plaintiff’s architect expert: Anthony Shinsky.

Thomas Bonacorsi, M.D. vs. Banksville Commons LLC,

Snow and Ice Management Company Inc and City

Limits Landscape. Case no. GD-19-000138; Judge

Michael Dellavecchia, 11-07-22.

Attorney for plaintiff: Matthew Barnes in Pittsburgh,

PA. Attorney for plaintiff: Eric Anderson of Meyer

Darragh in Pittsburgh, PA. Attorney for defendant:

Terrance Henne of Mintzer Sarowitz Zeris & Ledva in

Sewickley, PA. Attorney for defendant: Dana Horton

of Thomson Rhodes & Cowie in Pittsburgh, PA.

COMMENTARY

The plaintiff provided expert testimony from a licensed architect

and premises safety expert who opined that the parking lot where

the doctor was walking was defective due to the localized de-

pressed, deteriorated and improperly sloped areas which caused

snow melt water to puddle and freeze creating icy and slippery

conditions that were dangerous. This expert stated that the park-

ing lot surface was in a deteriorated condition and was not prop-

erly sloped for drainage for an extended period of time. According

to this expert, the property owners and those retained to maintain

the property were responsible for making inspections that would

have identified these hazardous depressions and to make

necessary repairs.

The expert argued that resurfacing the parking lot should have

taken place. The failure of the defendants to have inspected and

repaired the parking lot to properly drain and to otherwise ensure

that the parking lot was safe for pedestrian use through adequate

winter maintenance violated standards of care for safe walkways,

safe winter maintenance and property maintenance all causing

the plaintiff to fall and sustain injury.

2

Volume 41, Issue 3, February 2023 Subscribe Now