PREMISES LIABILITY. Fall Down. DEFENDANT'S VERDICT

• Pages: 20-21

The plaintiff maintained that she suffered tibial band

syndrome in the left hip, as well as left hip bursitis and

a left hip impingement. The plaintiff asserted that she

will permanently suffer pain and difficulties.

The defendant denied that the incident caused the

plaintiff’s complaints. The defendant pointed out that

the plaintiff suffered similar right-sided complaints

and contended that it was clear that the condition

was degenerative in nature and unrelated to the fall.

The plaintiff countered that she had no prior left-sided

complaints.

The plaintiff was able to return to part-time positions

with Pottery Barn and as a substance abuse

counselor.

The case settled prior to trial for $80,000.

REFERENCE

Plaintiff’s orthopedic surgeon expert: Anthony Scillia,

M.D. from Wayne, NJ. Defendant’s orthopedic

surgeon expert: Hervey Sicherman, M.D. from

Wayne, NJ.

Plaintiff 61-year-old supermarket shopper vs. Defen-

dant supermarket.

Attorney for plaintiff: Melissa Baxter of Rossetti &

DeVoto, PC in Cherry Hill, NJ.

DEFENDANT’S VERDICT

Premises liability – Fall down – Slip and fall on ice

and snow – Defendant points out that it had

recently started snowing and denied it could be

liable for storm in progress – Tear of dominant

shoulder – Surgery.

Bergen County, NJ

In this motor vehicle negligence matter, the

female plaintiff, in her 60s, contended that the

defendant mall should have begun snow removal

activities when it started snowing approximately

one hour earlier. The plaintiff maintained that as

aresult,sheslippedandfell,sufferingatearof

the dominant shoulder that was confirmed by MRI

and treated with arthroscopic surgery. The

defendant denied notice of a dangerous condition

and further denied that it could be liable for a fall

that was caused by a storm in progress. There

was no evidence that any ice or snow emanated

from a prior storm.

The plaintiff’s orthopedic surgeon concluded that the

plaintiff will suffer pain and limitation permanently.

The defendant’s orthopedic surgeon opined that the

condition resolved.

The jury found for the defendant.

REFERENCE

Plaintiff’s orthopedic surgeon expert: David Deramo,

M.D. from Englewood, NJ. Defendant’s orthopedic

surgeon expert: Michael Meese, M.D. from

Hackensack, NJ.

Tumminello vs. Westfield Garden State Plaza. Docket

no. BER-L-8414-16; Judge Christine Farrington, 01-19.

Attorney for defendant: Stephen Wellinghorst of

Harwood Lloyd in Hackensack, NJ.

DEFENDANT’S VERDICT

Premises liability – Fall down – Defendant

landscaper at commercial building in which

plaintiff worked allegedly uses improper adhesive

material when constructing paver patio

approximately three years earlier – Plaintiff

contends combination of loose paver and alleged

failure to adequately address snow and ice

culminates in plaintiff falling and suffering

fracture to ankle cartilage – Arthroscopic surgery –

CRPS – Plaintiff able to continue working as a

clothing designer.

Middlesex County, NJ

In this premises liability matter, the female

plaintiff, in her 50s, whose employer was a tenant

of the defendant landowner, contended that the

defendant landscaper negligently failed to use

proper adhesive material when constructing a

paver patio approximately three years earlier. The

plaintiff also contended that adequate snow

removal was not conducted when it snowed a day

or so earlier, resulting in melting and refreezing,

heightening the hazard. The plaintiff related that

as she was crossing the patio to meet her

husband in the parking lot, she lost her balance

on a loose paver and then fell because of the ice,

injuring herself. The landscaper’sdutiesincluded

snow removal, but the landscaper was

contractually indemnified for snow and ice issues

by the defendant landowner. The landowner

settled during trial. The jury was aware that this

party settled.

The plaintiff maintained that the landscaper should

have used mortar or cement to securely install the

pavers. The defendant landscaper pointed out that

the plaintiff could not testify as to which paver was

loose. The husband visited the premises approxi-

mately four months later, related that he determined

that one of the pavers was loose by lifting it up and

the plaintiff argued that the jury should consider that

the plaintiff fell as a result of this loose paver. The

landscaper denied that the plaintiff’s claims should

20 VERDICTS BY CATEGORY

Volume 39, Issue 11, April 2019 Subscribe Now