Plaintiff-Tenant Fell in Laundry Room and Sustained Broken Elbow and RSD

RESULT: $1.1 Million
TYPE: Jury Trial

COUNTY: Los Angeles
COURT: Los Angeles Superior Court
CASE NAME: Alicia Garces vs. Bruce Bernard and Norwich Management Inc.
CASE NO.: BC244614
JUDGE: Frances Rothschild
DEPT.: 28

PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY(S):
Law Offices of Maro Burunsuzyan, by Maro Burunsuzyan, Glendale, (818) 507-5188.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY(S):
Barry Bartholomew & Associates, by Lawrence W. Dailey, Glendale, (818) 543-4000.

INSURANCE COMPANY: State Farm Insurance Company

DAMAGES:
Specials: past medicals $119,787.24; LOE - past $20,350.00; present cash value of future medicals and LOE: $720,739.00

FACTS/CONTENTIONS:
According to Plaintiff: Plaintiff-tenant, Alicia Garces, a 54 year old hairdresser assistant by occupation sustained a broken right elbow as a result of a slip and fall incident in defendants’ laundry room on October 17, 2000. Plaintiff later developed reflect sympathetic dystrophy (RSD), a nerve injury. 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.

JURY POLL: 12-12; liability/ 12-12; causation / 11-12; economic / 12-12; non-economic.
TRIAL TIME: 5 days.
JURY OUT: 2 days.
VERDICT: May 1, 2002

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.