PREMISES LIABILITY. Fall Down. $______ RECOVERY

• Pages: 16-16

conduct. The plaintiff contended that a number of

prior incidents of dangerous maneuvers by the

goalie that were against the rules had been

brought to the referee’s attention and that the

referee was told that unless the conduct stopped,

someone would be hurt. The plaintiff maintained

that as he was running towards the goal, and

while the ball was not near him, the goalie came

out and executed a slide tackle, which caused the

fractures.

The plaintiff had executed a waiver and release in fa-

vor of the facility, and the court held that in order to

prevail against the facility, the plaintiff would be re-

quired to show that the referee acted in a grossly

negligent manner. Stelluti v. Casapenn Enterprises,

LLC, 203 N.J. 286, 300 (2010). The defendant con-

tended that the incident occurred when the ball was

being passed to the plaintiff and that the goalie

acted appropriately in attempting to intercept the

pass. The referee denied that any prior dangerous

play occurred and that he exercised his judgment re-

garding the calls that he made. The plaintiff and de-

fendant facility each presented a number of

witnesses who supported the parties’ description of

the manner in which the incident occurred.

The plaintiff also named the goalie and was required

to show reckless conduct, irrespective of the issue of

the release. Crawn v. Campo, 136 N.J. 494, 643 A.2d

600 (1994). The goalie appeared pro-se, made a

very good appearance during trial, and the plaintiff

took a voluntary dismissal as to this party during trial.

The plaintiff sustained compound fractures of the right

tibia and fibula. He required an ORIF and contended

that he will permanently suffer pain and an awkward

gait. The plaintiff, who was very athletically oriented,

contended that he has been forced to give up most

such endeavors and can now only swim. The plaintiff

also maintained that the extensive leg scarring is

permanent in nature.

The jury found that the defendant was not grossly

negligent, and a defense verdict was entered.

REFERENCE

Plaintiff’s recreational expert: Gordon Schmidt, PhD

from Wayne, NJ.

Burkert vs. The Center Circle, LP. Docket no. MID-L-

9962-09; Judge Matthias Rodriguez, 03-06-12.

Attorney for defendant: Paul F. Clark of Wade Clark

Mulcahy in Mountainside, NJ.

PREMISES LIABILITY

Fall Down

$400,000 RECOVERY

Premises Liability – Fall Down – Failure of

landlord of four-family house to adequately

remove snow and ice – Plaintiff tenant in same

building slips and falls on walkway – Fractures to

right distal humerus and wrist.

Union County, NJ

This case involved a 79-year-old plaintiff who

rented an apartment in the defendant’s four-

family home. The plaintiff’s son also rented an

apartment in the opposite side of the building.

The plaintiff maintained that the sidewalk on

which she was walking on to get to her son’s

apartment contained untreated ice that was

situated in front of the drain line discharge and

that she slipped and fell.

The plaintiff contended that the weather records re-

flected that one and a-half inches of snow had fallen

three days earlier and that the temperature in the in-

terim varied from below freezing to freezing. The

plaintiff maintained that it was highly foreseeable that

ice would form and that the defendant should have

had the area treated with chemicals.

The evidence disclosed that the defendant had hired

the plaintiff’s son to oversee the snow and ice re-

moval for the property for a monthly discount in his

rent and the plaintiff maintained that the ultimate re-

sponsibility for failure to maintain the sidewalk rested

with the defendant landlord. The defendant main-

tained that the plaintiff was clearly comparatively

negligent.

The plaintiff contended that she suffered fractures to

the distal humerus on the right, dominant side and a

right wrist fracture. The plaintiff underwent an elbow

arthroplasty. The plaintiff maintained that she will suf-

fer permanent pain and restriction and that traumatic

arthritis is likely. The plaintiff also contended that de-

spite an open reduction internal fixation of the right

distal radial fracture, she will suffer permanent pain

and restriction. The defendant contended that the

plaintiff made a good recovery and denied that

arthritis is probable.

The case settled prior to trial for $400,000.

REFERENCE

Plaintiff’s engineering expert: Wayne F. Nolte, PhD,

PE from Hazlet, NJ. Plaintiff’s orthopedic hand

surgical expert: Abram E. Kirshenbaum, MD from

Denville, NJ. Defendant’s orthopedic surgical expert:

Joseph Corona, MD from Berkeley Heights, NJ.

Prutzman vs. Montini, et al. Docket no. UNN-L-0934-

11, 06-26-12.

Attorney for plaintiff: Andrew S. Prince of Prince &

Portnoi, PC in Clark, NJ.

16 VERDICTS BY CATEGORY

Volume 33, Issue 2, July 2012 Subscribe Now