Articles Posted in Slip and Fall Injuries

When a person is injured and they file a lawsuit to recover damages for their injuries, they expect to “have their day in court,” to be able to present their case and all of the facts and evidence that support their case. But what if the other side argues that there is no real disagreement about the facts and that the facts do not support the injured party’s claim? A judge can decide early on in a lawsuit that there is no real question about a material fact and that reasonable persons would come to the same conclusion when considering the facts. This is what happened to Mr. Salvadore Tramuta when he filed suit for personal injuries in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana.

Mr. Tramuta fell as he stepped from the raised sidewalk in front of a strip mall to the parking lot. The reasons for his fall are the crux of the lawsuit. The strip mall’s owners, Lakeside Plaza, L.L.C., had recently corrected what they thought was a dangerous hazard to customers and unwittingly created for themselves the basis for Mr. Tramuta’s lawsuit.

Lakeside’s strip mall has about eight stores with a raised sidewalk running the length of the building. At first, the step was reasonably manageable from the sidewalk to the parking lot, but over time the soil settled and the step became larger as the parking lot settled lower. Lakeside corrected this problem by having an additional step made between the sidewalk and the parking lot so that customers would not have such a large step down or up. The parking lot had parking spaces fronting the sidewalk and perpendicular to it. Each parking space also has a parking bumper parallel to the sidewalk. When Lakeside added the additional step they chose to leave the parking bumpers in place. As a result, the step down from the sidewalk was shorter but the area between the parking bumpers and the step was lessened, creating less space for customers to step as they exited the stores.

A night at Harrah’s Casino in New Orleans not only can not only break your bank but it could break your back as well if your not careful.  Unfortunately for one Louisiana man black jack turned into broke back when he slipped and fell on water on the bathroom floor.  Gregory Beggs was out for an evening of black jack at Harrah’s Casino, in New Orleans when he had to use the restroom. Mr. Begg’s noticed that the bathroom floor had a large puddle of water on the floor. Begg’s let a Harrah’s employee know of the situation, and it became clear several other employees already knew the issue existed. The Casino failed to clean up the spill on the floor, and when Begg’s returned to the bathroom needing to go “Urgently” around an hour and a half later the water was still littering the floor. Noticing the liquid, Begg’s attempted to use the urinal but nevertheless slipped and fell injuring his back.

The First City Court of New Orleans found Mr. Begg’s to be 50% at fault for the accident. On Appeal Harrah’s argued that the lower court erred in finding Begg’s only to be 50% at fault, stating instead he should have been seen as 100% responsible for the damages.

In examining this problem, the appeals court looked to the Louisiana Supreme Court, and its decision in Duncan v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co., 773 So.2d 670, 680-81. In the Duncan ruling the Louisiana Supreme Court determined that “‘the trier of fact is owed some deference in allocating fault’ since the finding of percentages of fault is also a factual determination. Clement v. Frey, 666 So.2d 607, 609, 610.” In plain English the court determined that under ordinary circumstance the finding of degree of fault should be left to the trier of fact, or jury, to determine. Only if the amount apportioned is clearly wrong should the court intervene.

Sometimes what you do – or fail to do – before filing a lawsuit, can have a big impact on the final result, as Ross Lynch of Mandeville, Louisiana recently learned. Lynch owns property on Girard Street in Mandeville. Two of his neighbors own a lot directly adjacent to his property that is used by the City of Mandeville as a public parking lot. Overgrown grass and weeds were growing along the fence that separated the two lots. Until filing a lawsuit, Lynch never mentioned this problem to the neighbors or asked them to get rid of the overgrowth, which he considered to be an “obvious nuisance.”

In June 2010, Lynch entered the neighbors’ property without their permission in order to trim the grass and weeds. In the process, Lynch inadvertently fell into a four-foot deep hole that had been hidden by the dense growth. The hole was caused by a broken sewer pipe that belonged to the City of Mandeville. Lynch injured his foot and ankle and filed a lawsuit to get compensation for his injuries and reimbursement for medical bills, naming the property owners and the City of Mandeville as defendants.

Lynch argued that the property owners, as well as the City, had “constructive knowledge” of the dangerous hole on the property before he was injured because the overgrowth of weeds and grass had thoroughly hidden it and it therefore posed an unreasonable risk of danger. “Constructive knowledge” of a dangerous condition refers to the existence of facts that lead to an inference of actual knowledge of the condition.  See La.R.S.9:2800(D).  Lynch also argued that, because the property was used by the City as a public parking lot, it was under the control of the City, as well as of the property owners.

In 2011 Peggy McCastle-Getwood was an employee at the K-Mart in Mandeville, Louisiana. On May 26, 2011 she arrived to work around 8:00 a.m. and went to the back of the store to place her belongings in the locker room. With a cup of coffee in her hand, Ms. McCastle headed back to the front of the store and slipped and fell.

In March of 2012, Ms. McCastle filed a petition for damages and named Professional Cleaning Control (Professional) as a defendant. Professional Cleaning Control was a company hired by K-Mart to clean the floors in the Mandeville store. She asserted that she sustained injuries caused by the negligence of a Professional Employee leaving a liquid substance where she fell. Subsequently, K-Mart filed a petition to intervene, setting forth that it had paid for medical expenses and workers’ compensation benefits for Ms. McCastle, as a result of her injury at work.  See LA C.C.P. Art. 1091

In September of 2013, Professional filed a motion for summary judgment based on Ms. McCastle’s deposition. In her deposition Ms. McCastle testified that she did not how the liquid substance got on the floor, nor did she know how long the liquid substance was on the floor. Based on this testimony, Professional asserted that Ms. McCastle would not be able to meet her burden of proof that Professional owed a duty of care, or if a duty was owed, that the duty had been breached.