|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Plaintiff-Tenant Fell in Laundry Room and Sustained Broken Elbow and RSD RESULT: $1.1 Million
COUNTY: Los Angeles PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY(S): DEFENSE ATTORNEY(S): INSURANCE COMPANY: State Farm Insurance Company DAMAGES: FACTS/CONTENTIONS: JURY POLL: 12-12; liability/ 12-12; causation / 11-12; economic / 12-12;
non-economic. COMMENTS: The initial offer of settlement by State Farm Insurance Company was for waiver of cost. A month before trial, $100,000.00 was offered which was increased at court referred mediation to $200,000.00. Then a “998" offer of $300,000.00 was made by State Farm Insurance company , which was increased to $400,000.00 one week before the trial. Although plaintiff’s “998" demand was for $750,000.00, in settlement discussions with the adjuster days before trial, $500,000.00 was suggested as the lowest plaintiff would take. Plaintiff filed motions for costs and interest per CCP §998 for a total of approximately $60,000.00. Defendant’s motion for New Trial was denied on July 11, 2002. Defendant’s motion to Strike or Tax Costs is still pending, however State Farm Ins. Co. has already paid plaintiff $1,013,905.96 of the judgement. |
|
© 2002 Law Offices of Maro Burunsuzyan |
Plaintiff
argued that defendants knew that another tenant, Janice Elswick habitually
washed her clothes on top of the washing machines, thus causing soapy
water to get on the floor. Although on the date of the subject incident,
it was unknown whether or not Elswick had been in the laundry room, plaintiff
argued that it did not matter since the floor was slippery and anyone
could have spilled water and created a dangerous condition. Defendants
argued that they had applied silica sand to the paint on the floor and
therefore the floor could not have been slippery and that any alleged
soapy water on the floor was open and obvious. Defendants, owner and manager
of the complex gave inconsistent testimonies regarding the use of silica
sand in the application of paint. Plaintiff argued that defendants did
not use silica sand on the subject laundry room at least two years prior
to the incident. Plaintiff further argued that defendants had notice of
the slippery floor and failed to take preventive measures such as placing
of mats or frequent application of some type of abrasive material to the
floor. Defendants, owner and manager gave inconsistent testimonies regarding
notice and also argued that plaintiffs’ injuries were not permanent,
that she was employable and did not need any future care. Plaintiff testified
that she continued to suffer from pain and discomfort due to the incident
and as a result could not work. Plaintiff’s vocational rehab expert
testified that plaintiff was not employable and that any work she attempted
to do after the incident was out of desperation to pay her bills. 