PREMISES LIABILITY. Fall Down. DEFENDANT'S VERDICT

Pages16-17
REFERENCE
Stacy Haynes vs. Dawn Rhae Carlisle. Case no.
201403643; Judge Michael Landrum, 09-10-15.
Attorney for plaintiff: Sambar Kumar Mukerji of
Mukerji Law Firm in Houston, TX. Attorney for
defendant: Karl Douglas Drews of Cooper, Jackson &
Boanerges in Houston, TX.
Reverse Collision
$1,022 VERDICT
Motor Vehicle Negligence – Reverse collision –
Defendant backs into front of plaintiff’s vehicle –
Failure to prevent vehicle from traveling
backwards and striking plaintiff’s vehicle – Neck
and back disc injuries requiring chiropractic
treatment and surgery.
U.S. District Court, Eastern, Texas
The plaintiff, in this personal injury action,
maintained that the defendant truck driver
operating a truck for the defendant company
negligently backed his vehicle into the front of the
plaintiff’s vehicle causing the plaintiff injury. The
defendant denied causing the accident and that
the plaintiff sustained any injury in the minor
collision.
On September 19, 2014, the plaintiff was involved in a
collision with the defendant in Texas when the defen-
dant backed his tractor trailer into the front of the plain-
tiff’s vehicle, causing the plaintiff to be violently jerked
about in his car, striking his face of the steering wheel
and suffering serious injuries to the cervical spine. The
plaintiff alleged that the defendant was negligent in fail-
ing to keep a proper lookout, failing to control speed of
the vehicle, failing to timely apply brakes, failing to con-
trol his vehicle to avoid a collision and failing to prevent
his vehicle from traveling backwards and striking the
plaintiff’s vehicle.
As a result, the plaintiff suffered cervical disc herniations,
and injury to the cervical nerve root which required two
surgeries including the placement of hardware, muscle
spasms, radiculitis, hyperesthesia, injury to dorsal nerve
root, injury to lumbar nerve root, lumbosacral sprain/
strain, sacroiliac sprain/strain, and shoulder arm injury.
The defendant argued that the actions of the plaintiff
caused or contributed to the accident and maintained
that the damages alleged by the plaintiff were not
causally related to the accident.
The jury found that the collision did cause injury to the
plaintiff and awarded the plaintiff past medicals of
$1,022.
REFERENCE
Clevon Harmanson vs. Phillip M. Ryan and Con-way
Truckload. Case no. 15-cv-179, 04-21-16.
Attorney for plaintiff: Gene Stuart Hagood of The
Law Office of Gene S. Hagood in Alvin, TX. Attorney
for defendant: Eric R Benton of Lorance & Thompson
PC - Houston in Houston, TX.
PREMISES LIABILITY
Fall Down
DEFENDANT’S VERDICT
Premises Liability – Fall down – Plaintiff, in course
of his employment with defendant, slips and falls
while cleaning a spill in men’s restroom of one of
defendant’s stores - Failure to provide a
necessary instrumentality of his employment –
Broken Femur and dislocated hip – Surgery
required.
U.S. District Court, Northern, Texas
The plaintiff in this premises liability action was
employee of the defendant when in the course
and scope of his job he slipped and fell while
cleaning one of the defendant’s restrooms. The
defendant denied all allegations and motioned
the court for summary judgment which the court
granted.
On July 27, 2009, the male plaintiff worked as a utility
clerk at one of the defendant’s locations in Mesquite,
Texas. The plaintiff was inspecting the men’s bathroom
when he discovered a “brown, oily looking substance”
covering approximately 80 % of the floor. Using the sup-
plies on his utility cart, which the defendant provided,
the plaintiff began to clean the spill. Normally, his cart in-
cluded a product called Spill Magic, which is used to
absorb liquid spills. On the day of the incident, however,
the defendant was out of Spill Magic, so the plaintiff at-
tempted to use dry mop heads to absorb the liquid. He
had successfully cleaned a similar spill in the women’s
restroom using this technique, and managed to clean
30-40% of the men’s room before he slipped. The plain-
tiff maintained that the defendant was negligent in fail-
ing to provide a necessary instrumentality of his
16 VERDICTS BY CATEGORY
Volume 7, Issue 10, May 2016 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