$______ GROSS VERDICT - PREMISES LIABILITY - NEGLIGENT SECURITY - PLAINTIFF CLAIMS DEFENDANT FAILED TO PROVIDE SECURITY FOR PATRONS OF ITS RESTAURANT/BAR RESULTING IN PLAINTIFF BEING ATTACKED WITH GLASS BY PATRON - LOSS OF VISION IN LEFT EYE; PERMANENT FACIAL SCARRING - DEFENDANT DENIES IT COULD HAVE FORESEEN NEED FOR SECURITY AND ARGUES PLAINTIFF PROVOKED ATTACK.

• Pages: 6-8

maintained that the employee declined to climb

the ladder. Since she was late for an appointment

at 6:30 p.m., and believed the studio was closing

for the day because the lights were being turned

off, she decided to attempt to climb over the wall.

The plaintiff asserted that although she

successfully reached the top of the ladder and

transitioned to the other side with the plan of

landing on a couch, the wall was thicker than she

thought and she fell from the top of the wall to

the floor sustaining injury. The defendant denied

that the plaintiff’s version was accurate or that the

employees were asked to summon a locksmith.

The evidence disclosed that the plaintiff had emi-

grated from Japan and continued to be very attuned

to the culture. The plaintiff was self-employed and in-

troduced Japanese people to potential business

contacts. The plaintiff had an appointment with con-

tacts approximately 1-2 hours later and related that

she was extremely concerned she would be late, es-

pecially since tardiness could well be seen as a lack

of respect and would hurt her efforts. The evidence

also reflected that the defendant had not had a key

for the office, which was not ordinarily used for retail

purposes, for approximately 8 years.

The defendant asserted that the plaintiff who was de-

scribed by a friend as an “exercise fanatic,” opted on

her own to attempt to climb over the wall after re-

questing a ladder. The plaintiff denied that this posi-

tion should be accepted and contended that after

the employees brought the ladder, they refused to

climb it. The defendant could not dispute that the key

had been missing for some 8 years.

The plaintiff maintained that she was in severe pain

after she suffered injury, but hoped that the condition

would improve. She did not go to the hospital until

the following day, and was diagnosed with a fracture

of the calcaneus. The foot was placed in a cast. The

plaintiff contended that although surgery has been

recommended, she has also been advised that the

surgery is considered high risk, carries only an approxi-

mate 50% chance of improvement and has yet not

undergone the surgery. The plaintiff maintained that

she often uses a cane, and can only remain active

for limited periods of time despite pain medication.

The plaintiff asserted that her condition is getting

worse and that she may ultimately undergo surgery.

The plaintiff further maintained that she was previously

very active, having enjoyed hiking and dancing and

is now limited in the extent to which she can con-

tinue. The plaintiff, who was unable to work for several

months, made no income claims.

The jury found each party 50% responsible and ren-

dered a gross award of $3,500,000.

REFERENCE

Plaintiff’s orthopedic surgeon expert: Phillip K.

Kwong M.D from Los Angeles, CA. Plaintiff’s

podiatrist expert: Steven Schwartz D.P.M from Santa

Monica, CA.

Maki vs. Wong, et al. Case no. BC701154; Judge

Mark A. Borenstein, 10-05-21.

Attorney for plaintiff: Anthony A. Liberatore of A.

Liberatore, PC in Los Angeles, CA. Attorney for

plaintiff: H.W. Trey Jones of Law Offices of H.W. Trey

Jones in Los Angeles, CA.

COMMENTARY

The defendant contended that the sole cause of the incident was the

negligence of the plaintiff who chose to climb up the ladder and

over the 12-foot wall. The plaintiff argued that the defendant’s

negligence placed her in the position with no good choices. Addi-

tionally, the fact that the defendant did not have a key for the pre-

ceding 8 years was undoubtedly very significant.

Regarding damages, the plaintiff, who suffered some lost income,

incurred medical expenses, and future care needs, did not make a

claim for these losses which could shift the jury’s focus from the se-

vere claimed pain and suffering.

$961,112 GROSS VERDICT – PREMISES LIABILITY – NEGLIGENT SECURITY – PLAINTIFF

CLAIMS DEFENDANT FAILED TO PROVIDE SECURITY FOR PATRONS OF ITS

RESTAURANT/BAR RESULTING IN PLAINTIFF BEING ATTACKED WITH GLASS BY

PATRON – LOSS OF VISION IN LEFT EYE; PERMANENT FACIAL SCARRING –

DEFENDANT DENIES IT COULD HAVE FORESEEN NEED FOR SECURITY AND ARGUES

PLAINTIFF PROVOKED ATTACK.

Volusia County, FL

In this premises liability case, the plaintiff patron

asserted that the defendant bar/restaurant failed

to provide adequate security resulting in injury to

the plaintiff. The defendant denied liability and

contended the plaintiff was at fault for his own

injuries.

The plaintiff was involved in a physical altercation on

September 27, 2017 at the defendant restaurant/bar,

resulting in injury to the plaintiff. At approximately 1:45

a.m., the plaintiff’s friend punched another patron on

an outside deck, thus starting a physical brawl. The

plaintiff eventually ran outside and assisted in break-

ing up the fight. There were no “bouncers” or inde-

pendent security personnel on staff at the time of the

6 SUMMARIES WITH TRIAL ANALYSIS

Volume 37, Issue 5, May 2022 Subscribe Now