PREMISES LIABILITY. Falling Object. $______ RECOVERY. Premises liability - Falling object - Minor plaintiff injured when shelf at defendant dance studio falls onto her - Laceration of left index finger - Sutures required.

• Pages: 17-17

Falling Object

$7,500 RECOVERY

Premises liability – Falling object – Minor plaintiff

injured when shelf at defendant dance studio falls

onto her – Laceration of left index finger – Sutures

required.

Nassau County, NY

In this premises liability action, the minor plaintiff

sustained injuries when a shelf fell onto her at the

defendant dance studio. The defendants generally

denied all allegations of negligence.

On January 31, 2015, the minor plaintiff was lawfully

attending a dance class at the defendant dance stu-

dio, located on the premises of 40 Maple Avenue in

Rockville Centre, New York. At this time, the minor

plaintiff was traversing one of the practice rooms in

the dance studio. At the time of the incident, the mi-

nor plaintiff was walking near several shelves that

were attached to the wall. As she was passing, one of

the shelves came loose from the wall and fell, striking

the minor plaintiff and causing her to become

injured.

The plaintiffs maintained that the defendants were

negligent in failing to maintain safe and adequate

conditions on the premises, failing to secure the sub-

ject shelves to wall, failing to inspect the subject

shelves, failing to prevent the shelves from falling, fail-

ing to prevent hazardous or unsafe conditions on the

premises, failing to warn that the shelves might fall,

failing to warn of hazardous or unsafe conditions on

the premises, and failing to regard for the health and

safety of visitors on the premises including the minor

plaintiff. Consequently, the minor plaintiff sustained in-

juries, including a laceration of the left index finger,

which required sutures to repair.

The parties entered into a settlement for $7,500.

REFERENCE

V. M. an infant under the age of 13 by her mother

and natural guardian, Maria Mejia an, Maria Mejia,

Individually vs. Miss Colleens Elite Dancentre, Ltd. In-

dex no. 601424/2018; Judge Jerome C. Murphy, 07-

06-21.

Attorney for plaintiff: Jason A. Greenberg of Law

Offices of Jason A. Greenberg in Freeport, NY.

Attorney for defendant: Steven F. Goldstein of Steven

F. Goldstein, LLP in Carle Place, NY.

Hazardous Premises

$20,000,000 RECOVERY

Premises liability – Hazardous premises –

Plaintiff’s decedent killed when defendants failed

to prevent elevator decedent was performing

maintenance on from moving resulting in

decedent being crushed between floors and

falling to his death – Wrongful death of 65-year-

old male.

Orangeburg County, SC

This premises liability case arose from an incident

which occurred on December 3, 2019 when the

plaintiff’s decedent, an employee of Alimak Hek

Elevator Company, visited the premises of the

Holcim Plant to conduct routine elevator

maintenance as requested by Holcim employees.

He plummeted to his death when the elevator

descended without warning. The defendants

generally denied all allegations of negligence.

The subject elevator requiring repair was situated in

the pre-heater tower of the Holcim Plant which

houses the cement kiln system. Before the mainte-

nance and testing on the subject elevator com-

menced, the decedent personally interacted with

defendants Simmons and Legette letting them know

he was going to be performing maintenance on the

elevator. Despite their direct knowledge of the dece-

dent’s repair work on the subject elevator, neither in-

dividual took any precautionary measures to warn

others of the decedent’s presence in and around the

elevator or to restrict power, use of, or access to the

elevator as they should have done.

At approximately 8:00 a.m. or shortly thereafter, the

decedent was working on and around the elevator

car to repair a limit switch adjustment near the third

and fourth floors of the pre-heater tower. While work-

ing on the elevator, the elevator car began to sud-

denly descend without warning. Upon information

and belief, the elevator had remained energized

and was not properly locked-out by Simmons,

Legette, and Holcim to prevent unsafe access and

use of the elevator during repair. Due to this sudden,

unexpected movement of the elevator car that was

generated by Holcim personnel, the decedent’s

body was pinned in between the pre-heater tower

and the elevator car causing him to suffer immedi-

ate, traumatic bodily injury and pain. Thereafter, the

decedent fell approximately 40 to 50 feet and died

at the Holcim Plant.

The estate of the decedent maintained that the de-

fendants were negligent in failing to take any steps to

eliminate the dangerous condition, such as restricting

VERDICTS BY CATEGORY 17

National Jury Verdict Review & Analysis

Subscribe Now