DEFENDANT'S VERDICT - CONTRACTOR'S NEGLIGENCE - EMPLOYER LIABILITY - TRIP AND FALL - PLAINTIFF DENTAL HYGIENIST TRIPS OVER CABINET LEFT IN HALLWAY OF DENTAL PRACTICE BY DEFENDANT CONTRACTOR DURING RENOVATIONS - DEFENDANT ARGUES CABINET LEFT BEHIND AFTER RENOVATIONS ON ORDER OF DENTAL PRACTICE OWNER - ULNAR IMPACTION; NUMBNESS IN RIGHT HAND; ADHESIVE CAPSULITIS OF RIGHT SHOULDER - WRIST REQUIRES SURGICAL REPAIR; SHOULDER TREATED WITH MULTIPLE INJECTIONS - DEFENDANT UNSUCCESSFULLY MOVES FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

• Pages: 8-9

ual members of management.” The plaintiff maintained that each of

the published statements was false and caused actual, calculable

damage to the plaintiff and would continue to harm her.

The plaintiff asserted that, since the time that the false statements

werepublished, andcontinuingthetimeoffiling,theplaintiffhashad

a very difficult time finding work in the music industry. But for the de-

famatoryarticle,theplaintiffhad everyconfidence shewould havere-

placedthework shewas nolonger performingfor thedefendants with

similar work for other artists. The plaintiff put forth, based on the en-

gagements she had expected to book for the defendants, and based

on a conservative commission of $2,000 per engagement, this repre-

sented a loss of $138,000. In addition, the plaintiff claimed to have

lost a potential opportunity to work with an agent in Washington

State. She estimated losses from that engagement to have been

$25,000. Finally, because of the manner in which the defendants de-

famed her, the plaintiff was unable to replace the $240,000 income I

would have received from working in an equivalent position. All told,

she estimated direct losses from the defamation to be at least

$403,000.

The plaintiff supported her claims with a statement from an enter-

tainment and marketing professional, the founder of a talent agency

based in Los Angeles with similarly well-known musical artists as the

defendant. The plaintiff’s expert stated that she had known the plain-

tiff for a number of years through her work for various musical artists.

The witness had advised the plaintiff that her agency wishedto form a

business relationship with the plaintiff so she could provide her skills

and experience to book artists for professional engagements. In July

2017,theagency requestedthat theplaintiff arrangethe bookingof a

specific artist to perform at a charity’s annual celebrity basketball

game. The booking did not take place because of scheduling difficul-

ties.However,had thisrelationship movedforward, theagency would

have engaged the plaintiff for many bookings on behalf of a wide

range of represented artists, according to the plaintiff’s witness.

In August 2017, however, the witness learned that the plaintiff had

beenpubliclyaccused oftheft andother wrongdoingby thedefendant

artist. While the witness stated that she did not believe that the plain-

tiff committed the acts of which she is accused, she decided that her

company could not afford to be associated with the plaintiff due to the

accusations. She therefore wrote to the plaintiff explaining that they

had “..originally discussed bringing you onboard with booking with

marathon agency clients such as Dave East and Nipsey Hussle. But

with the most recent allegations released about your prior business

with RGF/ Fetty Wap this has caused a bit of concern within our com-

pany. So we will pass on business dealings with you/your company at

this time.” The witness stated that she regretted having had to write

this email to the plaintiff, but the allegations made by the defendant

against her were very serious and damaging to the plaintiff’s reputa-

tion. The witness asserted that she could not take the risk of having

those accusations associated with herself or her companies.

On February 26, 2018, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion for

judgment by default. The court deemed that the defendants had

breached their contract with the plaintiff by failing to pay her

$242,703.Thecourtawardedthat amountplus interest.In April2018,

the defendants filed a motion to vacate the default and reopen the

case and that motion was granted. The parties proceeded with discov-

ery, ultimately resulting in a settlement of $140,000 in damages to

the plaintiff.

A payment schedule was set up whereby the defendants would make

seven payments by June 30, 2020 at which point the settlement of

$140,000 would be complete. The defendants made payments, al-

though not per the schedule, totaling $105,000, which was $35,000

short of the settlement amount, 6 months past the agreed upon date

for final payment. The plaintiff filed a motion to enforce the settle-

ment and for legal fees of $1,850 incurred in pursuing payment of the

agreed upon settlement. The defendants subsequently made another

payment, leaving the total due of $15,000 with legal fees of $1,850.

On 5/10/21, the court issued a Writ of Execution against the

defendants in the amount of $16,850.

DEFENDANT’S VERDICT – CONTRACTOR’S NEGLIGENCE – EMPLOYER LIABILITY – TRIP

AND FALL – PLAINTIFF DENTAL HYGIENIST TRIPS OVER CABINET LEFT IN HALLWAY

OF DENTAL PRACTICE BY DEFENDANT CONTRACTOR DURING RENOVATIONS –

DEFENDANT ARGUES CABINET LEFT BEHIND AFTER RENOVATIONS ON ORDER OF

DENTAL PRACTICE OWNER – ULNAR IMPACTION; NUMBNESS IN RIGHT HAND;

ADHESIVE CAPSULITIS OF RIGHT SHOULDER – WRIST REQUIRES SURGICAL REPAIR;

SHOULDER TREATED WITH MULTIPLE INJECTIONS – DEFENDANT UNSUCCESSFULLY

MOVES FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

Bergen County, NJ

In this negligence case, the plaintiff asserted that

the defendant renovation contractor left a cabinet

in a common walkway at her place of

employment and that she tripped over the cabinet

and fell, suffering significant, permanent injury.

The defendant denied liability and asserted that

the dental practice had not requested that the

cabinet be removed as part of the renovation.

On December 17, 2015, the plaintiff was a dental hy-

gienist at a dental practice located at 163 Engle

Street in Englewood. As the plaintiff was exiting the

practice’s lab room and walking into an adjacent

hallway, she suddenly tripped on a cabinet that had

been left on the floor in the doorway/hallway area

near the lab room as debris from a recent renovation

that should have been removed. As a result of the

fall, the plaintiff sustained ulnar impaction; a tear of

the triangular fibrocartilage complex; radial styloid

impingement and numbness in the right hand requir-

ing repair with open reduction and internal fixation.

The plaintiff also sustained adhesive capsulitis of the

right shoulder treated with multiple injections.

The plaintiff maintained that the cabinet had been

removed for interior work undertaken at the premises

by the defendant contractor as part of cabinetry ren-

8 SUMMARIES WITH TRIAL ANALYSIS

Volume 42, Issue 10, March, 2022 Subscribe Now