PREMISES LIABILITY. Hazardous Premises. $______ CONFIDENTIAL RECOVERY

Pages24-25
The jury found the defendant 95% negligent and the
plaintiff 5% comparatively negligent. The plaintiff was
awarded $300,000 in gross damages, reduced ac-
cordingly. The plaintiff’s costs and attorney fees were
added to the award.
REFERENCE
Sokolow vs. Latin House Grill, LLC. Case no. 2016-
021604-CA-01; Judge Dennis J. Murphy, 11-29-18.
Attorneys for plaintiff: Richard P. Pravato and Brett J.
Yonon of Wolf & Pravato in Fort Lauderdale, FL.
$133,000 VERDICT
Premises liability – Fall down – Plaintiff tenant fell
on cut-out of step – Failure to inspect – Failure to
repair – Fractured ribs requiring surgical repair –
Collapsed lung.
Orange County, CA
In this fall down matter, the plaintiff tenant
alleged that the defendant condominium owner
was negligent in failing to repair stairs which
were clearly not in compliance with building
codes. The plaintiff fell when she failed to
navigate the unusual cut out in the step, suffering
two broken ribs and a collapsed lung. The
defendant denied liability and maintained that the
plaintiff was comparatively negligent.
The female plaintiff rented a condominium from the
defendants. The winder stairs in the unit were not
code compliant and one step in particular had an
unusual cut out. The plaintiff kept a flashlight in the lo-
cation on the stairs to remind herself of the danger-
ous nature of that particular step, but had
successfully negotiated the stairs without any problem
for approximately one and one-half years. On the
date of this incident, the flashlight was not in its usual
location and that evening as she was navigating the
stairs, the plaintiff stepped into the cut out area and
fell. She fell to her side and down the stairs.
The plaintiff suffered injuries as a result of the fall. She
was diagnosed with two fractured ribs, one of which
required surgical repair. She also suffered a collapsed
lung. The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant
condominium owners alleging negligence. The plain-
tiff contended that the stairs were not in compliance
with the building code and that was the cause of her
fall.
The defendants denied the allegations. The defen-
dants disputed liability maintaining that in the 43
years that they had possessed the condominium, no
one had ever fallen due to the cut out step. The de-
fendants argued that while the step may not have
been up to code, it was open and obvious and the
plaintiff had navigated the stairs for one and one-half
years without any problem. The defendants argued
that the fall was solely due to the plaintiff’s own negli-
gence and questioned the mechanics of the fall.
At the conclusion of the trial, the jury deliberated for
approximately one and one-half hours and returned
its verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against the de-
fendants. The jury determined that the stairs were not
in compliance with the building code and the owners
had never properly inspected the stairs or made any
attempt to repair the code issue. The jury assessed li-
ability at 100% to the defendants and awarded the
plaintiff the sum of $133,000 in damages plus costs
of suit.
REFERENCE
Plaintiff’s liability expert: Mark Burns from Marina
del Rey, CA. Plaintiff’s orthopedic expert: William
Van Der Reis, M.D. from San Clemente, CA.
Defendant’s liability expert: Peter Zande from Lake
Forest, CA.
Hunter-Epp vs. Morales, et al. Case no. 30-
201800971258CUPO; Judge Charles Margines, 04-
09-19.
Attorney for plaintiff: Jeffrey Greenman of
Greenmanlaw, P.C. in Aliso Viejo, CA. Attorney for
plaintiff: Nicole Dolle of RMD Law in Irvine, CA.
Hazardous Premises
$600,000 CONFIDENTIAL RECOVERY
Premises liability – Hazardous premises – Fall –
Unsafe work environment – OSHA violations at
concert – Staging collapsed and caused the
plaintiff to fall 27 feet – Multiple fractures.
Withheld County, MA
In this matter, the plaintiff worker alleged that the
defendant companies were liable for failing to
provide a safe work environment and failing to
provide safe staging. The plaintiff fell 27 feet and
suffered multiple fractures when the staging
platform he was dismantling collapsed. The
defendants denied the allegations and disputed
causation and damages.
The 31-year-old male plaintiff, employed as a rigger,
was working at the defendant’s concert venue on a
platform stage that had been erected by the defen-
dants. As the plaintiff was dismantling the staging
platform following the concert, the platform gave
way, causing the plaintiff worker to fall approximately
27 feet.
24 VERDICTS BY CATEGORY
Volume 34, Issue 6, June 2019 Subscribe Now

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT