|
Proof of Trial Success
The firm of Fishman McIntyre P.C. enjoys the reputation of being a hard-nosed defense firm that takes many cases to verdict. The members of the firm have extensive experience in litigation and trial of a broad spectrum of cases including automobile negligence, product liability, contruction liability, premises liability, general liability, and professional malpractice. The reputation of Fishman McIntyre enables the firm to obtain very favorable results on those cases that are not tried.
|
Alleged negligent failure of employees of assisted living facility to assist elderly plaintiff in restroom. Fall - Severe bruising running from shoulder to hip - Cervical herniation requiring surgery - Alleged numbness in hands. Middlesex County.
This action involved a plantiff, approximately 90 years of age, who generally lived with his daughter, but who was a one-week resident at the defendant's assisted living facility during a period in which his daughter was away. The plaintiff, who used a walker, contended that when he awoke in the middle of the night and needed to use the restroom, two male attendants assisted him to the restroom without his walker and left. The plaintiff contended that as a result, he fell, suffering severe bruising from the shoulder to hip area as well as a herniated cervical disc that was superimposed on preexisting stenosis. The daughter was also a plaintiff and contended that since she was the caregiver of the father, she had standing under applicable case law.
The incident report reflected that the plaintiff had fallen in the restroom and had crawled back to his room. It also listed a small abrasion on the ankle, however, the individual preparing the report had no recollection of it. The plaintiff contended that he required a cervical laminectomy and that he continues to suffer very significant numbness in the hands which impacts on his activities of daily living.
The defendant denied that the plantiff's contentions should be accepted. The defendant maintained that although the plaintiff's father had indicated he was assisted by two males, the facility employed only one male and he was not on duty that weekend.
The jury found for the defendant. Reference: Evans vs. Marriot/Brighton Gardens Assisted Living, et al. Judge Melvin L. Gelade, 5-02. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$25,000 Verdict. Cracked sidewalk abutting home improvement store - Trip and fall - Head trauma resulting in losss of smell and associated diminution in taste - Fracture of bridgework. Passaic County.
The plaintiff contended that the sidewalk abutting the defendant's home improvement store was cracked, creating a height difference which resulted in her tripping and falling. The plaintiff presented the investigating officer who described an approximate one-quarter-inch height differential. The defendant argued that such a minial differential did not constitute a hazard, and the cause of the fall was the failure of the plaintiff to walk more carefully.
The plaintiff contended that she sustained a head trauma which resulted in the total loss of smell and associated severe diminution in the ability to taste. The plaintiff's neurologist contended that objective-type testing confirmed the deficit, but conceded that a portion of the scoring was made in error. The plaintiff also suffered a fracture to bridgework which had been placed in her mouth sometime earlier.
The plaintiff maintained that the defendant did not present any medical testimony and that the plaintiff's claims were unrebutted. The plaintiff had incurred $15,000 in medical costs and it was stipulated that such amount would not be presented to the jury and would be added to any award.
During deliberations, the jury requested further clarification on the issue of comparative negligence. The parties then entered into a high/low agreement of $450,000/$90,000. The jury found the defendant 100% negligent and awarded $25,000. Reference Cuadros vs. Home Depot, et al. Judge Thomas Brogan, 4-02. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fall Down - Defendant's Verdict. Vendor allegedly drops packing materials in supermarket aisle - Fall Down - Fractured Hip. Union County.
The female plaintiff supermarket shopper in her late 70s contended that the defendant vendor's worker negligently dropped plastic packing material in the aisle and neglected to pick it up, resulting in her slipping and falling over the material, suffering a fractured hip.
The plaintiff testified that she first noticed the material after she had fallen while attempting to obtain a box of crackers from the shelf. The defendant denied that the plaintiff's version of the incident was accurate and maintained that the fall occurred as a result of the plaintiff's being inadvertently struck by the corner of the shopping cart being pushed by her husband at a different area of the aisle near the frozen foods approximately ten feet away from the area the plaintiff claimed the fall occurred. The vendor's representatives contended that they observed the incident occur in this other area.
The defendant also presented a surveillance tape and argued that although the tape did not depict the fall, it showed the plaintiff on the aisle floor close to the frozen foods section. The defendant also maintained that the plaintiff had reported to her treating physician that she had fallen when she backed up and tripped over a cart, which mention was contained in the physician's records. The plaintiff denied making such a statement.
The plaintiff contended that she suffered a fractured hip which necessitated hip replacement surgery and maintained that she will permanently suffer pain and restriction. Reference Colineri vs. R.J.R. Nabisco and Shop Rite. Docket No. 5203-99; Judge Rudy Coleman, 7-13-01. |
|
| |
|
|
Defendant's Verdict. False Arrest and malicious prosecution - Plaintiff allegedly conceals wine in bag from other store while in defendant supermarket. Bergen County.
The plaintiff supermarket shopper, in his 60s, contended that he was in the aisle of the defendant supermarket and had a bag from another store in his cart when the defendant's employees approached and accused him on concealing wine sole in the defendant store's liquor department in this bag. The plaintiff asserted that the wine was properly placed in his cart, and maintained that after he protested his innocence, the defendant telephoned the polive, who arrested him for shoplifting. The plaintiff contended that he was detained at the police station for approximately four hours. The plaintiff was subsequently azquitted in municipal court.
The defendant contended that it had probable cause to stop and subsequently prosecute the plaintiff. The defendant maintained that its employees had observed the concealmeant of the wine and that such an action would violate the statute, notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff had not attempted to leave the store with the goods. The defendant contended that is offered the plaintiff the opportunity to pay for the wine with no consequence, but the plaintiff refused and became belligerent, prompting the call to the police. The arresting police officer testified that the plaintiff was belligerent and further maintained that the plaintiff was detained at the station for approximately one and a half hours and not four hours as claimed. The defendant further argued that if the plaintiff had not secreted the wine in the bag from the other store and had simply placed it in his cart as claimed, he would not have had any problem paying for it at the time the defendant's employees approached him and asked him to pay for it, rather than paying for it shortly thereafter when he would have checked out all of his items. For this reason the defendant argued that the plaintiff's factual contentions should not be accepted.
The municipal court judge had found that the plaintiff was not guilty, but that the defendant had probable cause for the stop and prosecution. The defendant argued that the jury should be apprised of the finding. The plaintiff countered that the comments by the municipal court judge regarding probable cause were gratuitous, not necessary for the findings made, and that the evidence should not be introduced in the civil case. The Court concurred with the plaintiff and excluded the evidence. The plaintiff introduced $3,250 in legal fees from the municipal court appearance. The plaintiff contended that he suffered posttraumatic stress disorder which was causing anxiety and nightmares which, the plaintiff contended, had continued up until trial.
The jury found that the defendant had probable cause for both the initial detainment and subsequent prosecution, and a defense verdict was entered.
Reference Cajkovich vs. The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc. Docket No. L-005074-98; Judge Jonathan Harris, 3-01. |
|
|
|
|
$380,000 Verdict. Plaintiff's disabled car struck by tractor-trailer on shoulder - Cervical "Hangman's" fracture - Alleged continuing restriction as well as numbness and weakness in arms - Damages only. Orange County.
The female plaintiff contended that the defendant's tractor-trailer driver negligently failed to make adequate observations, resulting in his striking the plaintiff's disabled car, which was on the shoulder a significant distance from the travel portion of the road. The defendant driver conceded that he had failed to make observations and the Court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability.
The plaintiff contended that she sustained a C-2 "hangman's" fracture, which the plaintiff contended caused permanent restriction of motion in the neck, some restriction in the ability to elevate her arms as well as numbness and tingling in the arms. The plaintiff's orthopedist contended that the symptoms are permanent and that the plaintiff may well require future surgery to resolve instability in the spinal column.
The defendant's orthopedist contended the MRI and x-rays showed no gross instability with flexion or extension and maintained that there was no compromise of the spinal canal. The defendant's expert maintained that the plaintiff suffered no neurological deficits.
The jury awarded $300,000 for past pain and suffering, $50,000 for future pain and suffering and $30,000 for medical expenses.
Reference Dennison vs. Wakefern Food Corp. Index No. 1169/96; Judge Joseph Owen. |
|
|
|
|
$3,500 Verdict vs. Individual Defendant Only. Plaintiff using recreation room provided by boat marina injured as a result of alleged horseplay by marina worker - Marina denies worker in course of employment - Plaintiff allegedly strikes weight held over her face as she is doing sit-up with eyes closed - Loss of two teeth - TMJ Dysfunction - Alleged soft tissue injuries - Additur. Bergen County.
The female plaintiff, age 15 at the time, whose parents rented space at the defendant marina, was using the weight room at the defendant's premises. The plaintiff contended that as she was working out, three of the defendant marina's male workers, including the individual defendant, came into the room. The plaintiff maintained that the defendant negligently commenced horseplay by holding a weight into the path of her face as she was performing a sit up with her eyes closed.
The plaintiff maintained that the workers were on call and that their duties generally entailed maintaining the recreation room, arguing that the individual defendant was acting with the scope of his employment. The defendant marina argued that the individual involved was using the recreation room for his own purposes, was not working at the time, and contended that the incident occurred outside the scope of his employment. The individual defendant denied that the plaintiff's version was accurate. The individual defendant maintained that he was simply moving the weight and that the plaintiff negligently caused the incident by performing a sit up with her eyes closed.
The plaintiff contended that she suffered the loss of two teeth, one of which required a root canal with a post and both requiring capping. The plaintiff, who is an actress, made no income claims, but contended that she had great concerns regarding her appearance. The cosmetic result was ultimately good. The plaintiff maintained that she will require periodic replacement of the caps in the future. The plaintiff further contended that she suffered TMJ dysfunction and soft tissue cervical injuries which will cause permanent pain and restriction.
The defendants contended that the jury should consider that the plaintiff struck the steering wheel in a subsequent automobile accident, knocking out the caps. The defendant argued that any continuing TMJ or soft tissue sequela stemmed from this subsequent accident.
The plaintiff introduced medical specials in excess of $7,000 and maintained that future medical expenses will exceed $26,000.
The jury assessed 100% negligence against the individual defendant. The jury also found that the individual defendant was not acting within the scope of his employment. They then awarded $3,500. The Court subsequently held that verdict was shockingly low and granted an additur of $23,300.
Reference Reid vs. Shelter Harbor Marina Condo Assoc. and Mirth, et al. Docket No. Ber-L-2760-93; Judge Isabel Stark, 3-26-97. |
|
| |
|
|
Defendant's Verdict. Alleged negligent storage of carton on top of stand-up freezer - Entire carton allegedly falls as plaintiff attempting to retrieve one 1-lb. box of wax contained in carton - Liability only. Union County.
The female plaintiff contended that the defendant supermarket negligently stored a carton of 25 1-lb. boxes of wax on top of an approximate 7 1/2 foot high freezer. The plaintiff contended that when she reached for one box, the entire carton fell, striking her.
The plaintiff contended that after she was struck, she was bleeding and summoned for assistance. The manager testified that when he later observed the scene, several boxes were on the floor and that the carton remained on the freezer. The plaintiff contended that she replaced the carton before obtaining help and the defendant argued that this testimony was inherently implausible. The jury found for the defendant.
Reference Ciavarra vs. Franklin Shop-Rite. Docket No. L-7793-90; Judge A. Donald McKenzie, 12-15-93. |
|
|
|
|
Defendant's Verdict. Slip and fall in supermarket - Fractured hip - Atrial fibrillation allegedly brought on by stress associated with trauma. Morris County.
The female plaintiff in her 60's contended that the defendant failed to adequately maintain the floor, resulting in the presence of a slippery "swirl" on the aisle floor that was apparently created during mopping and which caused her to fall. The plaintiff's friend, who heard the fall, rushed to her side and observed the swirl.
The defendant denied that such a swirl was present and the plaintiff contended that there was no other explanation for the fall. The defendant presented a police officer who arrived on the scene and who indicated that he did not observe such a mark on the floor.
The plaintiff suffered a fractured hip. The physicians had planned on pinning the hip. The plaintiff contended however, that she developed atrial fibrillation as a result of the stress associated with the trauma and because of a delay occasioned by the cardiac difficulties, the plaintiff required a hip replacement procedure in lieu of pinning. There was no testimony that the cardiac difficulties are permanent in nature. The plaintiff contended that the recuperation period from the hip surgery was extremely painful. The plaintiff contended that she will suffer some permanent pain and that the slight limp observed by the jury is permanent as well.
The jury found that the defendant was not negligent. During trial, the parties had entered into a high/low agreement of $75,000/$25,000 and the case settled for $25,000.
Adams vs. Shop Rite. Docket No. L-668-89; Judge Karen Russel, 2-2-94.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Slip and fall on yogurt in supermarket aisle.Liability only.Middlesex County.The plaintiff who stopped at the defendant's supermarket after work with a fried, contended that she slipped and fell on five penny-sized drops of yogurt which were present on the aisle floor.The plaintiff contended that the substance had been present for a sufficiently long time so as to allow the defendant to observe and clean it. The plaintiff's friend, who observed the fall, indicated that she was not looking at the floor. The defendant denied any notice. The current manager, who was not the manager at the time, indicated that the area had been inspected five minutes earlier. The plaintiff challenged the basis for the witness' time estimate and the current manager indicated that he was basing his testimony on his viewing of a surveillance tape which showed the then manager, who like all employees, are trained to look at the floor, walking by the area some five minutes earlier. The court had previously ruled that the defendant could not present the videotape, which the defendant maintained did not support the plaintiff's claim as to the presence of the yogurt and which the court found was of relatively poor quality, rendering any probative value outweighed by the potential prejudicial affect. The witness also testified that on the videotape, he observed the manager look at the area shortly after the fall and shrug.The jury found that the defendant was not negligent. Reference Frank vs. A&P Docket No. L-01061-01; Judge Nicholas Stroumstsos, Jr., 1-04. |
|
Responsible Attorney: Christopher E. McIntyre |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fall allegedly occurs at mall.Ex-girlfriend purportedly witnessing incident testifies that it occurs at location other than mall.Liability Only Hudson County
|
|
The plaintiff, in his early 40s, contended that the defendant mall negligently left a paper flyer on the interior step.The plaintiff claimed that he was walking down the stairway with his then girlfriend when he slipped, prevented himself from falling and then walked down the stairs with her.The plaintiff, who claimed to have suffered significant leg injuries, maintained that his girlfriend then retrieved the car, they left, and by the next morning he was experiencing additional pain and swelling, prompting him to have his aunt bring him to the emergency room.The ex-girlfriend was listed as a witness, but could not initially be located. She indicated that sometime before the scheduled trial, she ran into the plaintiff's cousin and was advised of the suit, that the plaintiff intended to win a significant amount of money, and that she was listed as a witness. The girlfriend related that she then went to the mall and told the security personnel that no incident had occurred at the mall, but that the plaintiff had slipped and fallen on a sidewalk on the same day. The plaintiff presented the aunt's rebuttal testimony in which the aunt indicated that the plaintiff told her the incident occurred at the mall, and that the girlfriend, who was present, did not correct the plaintiff. The girlfriend maintained that she objected to the plaintiff regarding his plan to indicate that the incident occurred at the mall, but did not voice such objections in front of the aunt. The plaintiff also presented the cousin who allegedly ran into the ex-girlfriend and advised her of the suit, who denied having such a conversation with her. The plaintiff argued that the jury should consider that the ex-girlfriend was hostile to the plaintiff, and that her testimony should be rejected on the issue of bias. The jury specifically found that the incident had not occurred at the mall and a defense verdict was entered. Reference Corbato vs. NC Mall Assoc., et al. Docket No L-448-01; Judge Camille Kenny, 7-1-03. |
|
Responsible Attorney:Christopher E.McIntyre |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wall at parking deck allegedly too short to comply with BOCA Code - 22-year-old decedent allegedly falls from sixth floor parking deck-suffers fatal injuries-Wrongful death
|
|
The plaintiff contended that the 22-year-old decedent fell to his death form a wall adjoining the fifth floor of a parking deck at the defendant mall. The plaintiff maintained that the wall did not conform to the BOCA code because there was only a 30-inch distance between the concrete wheel stop and the top of the wall. The plaintiff further contended that the BOCA code required a wall of at least 42 inches. The incident occurred at approximately 1:00 a.m. on a Monday. The defendant denied that there was sufficient proof to permit the jury to consider whether the plaintiff fell from the fifth floor wall and made a motion for involuntary dismissal.
The plaintiff contended that the violation was a substantial factor in the decedent being able to sit on the wall and then fall to his death when apparently startled.
The defendant maintained that factors, including recent bizarre behavior on the part of the decedent probably reflected that the decedent entered the mall property after it closed and purposely jumped. Testimony revealed that the decedent left a book called God and The Big Bang Theory in the car with his photo and birth certificate in the book. In addition, the decedent's wallet, money and watch were found on the adjacent fourth floor roof, lending credence to this argument.
The defendant also contended that if properly measuring the height of the wall from the ground, rather than the wheel bumper, the wall complied with the 42-inch height requirement of the BOCA code.
There was no evidence of conscious pain and suffering.
The decedent was unmarried and had no children. The parents made a claim for the loss of services, companionship and guidance that would have been forthcoming from the decedent.
The court held there was inadequate evidence of causal relationship to submit the case to the jury and granted the defendant's motion for an involuntary dismissal at the close of the plaintiff's case.
Reference- Plaintiff's architect: Alexander Lisse, from Princeton Junction, NJ.
Fox vs. The Taubman Co., d/b/a/ The Mall at Short Hills, Docket No. L-2731-02; Judge John F. Malone 5-06 |
|
Responsible Attorney: Christopher E. McIntyre |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal malpractice - Alleged negligent failure of defendant attorney in underlying sexual assault/harassment case against former employer to seek appointment of guardian ad litem for purpose of finalizing settlement in underlying case. Plaintiff no caused by jury in underlying case following inability to finalize terms of $750,000 offer.
Essex
County
This was a legal malpractice action involving a female plaintiff who, in the underlying action, had brought a sexual assault/harassment action against her former employer in which she made allegations which included rape. The plaintiff contended that when an offer of $750,000 in three installments was made during the trial of the underlying case, she was unable to make decisions necessary to finalize the settlement, including issues relating to a confidentiality agreement and guarantees that the plaintiff would receive the installments when due. The settlement was not finalized and the jury in the underlying action returned with a finding of no cause for action. The plaintiff's legal expert contended that the defendant attorney should have realized that the plaintiff needed the appointment of a guardian ad litem for the limited purpose of finalizing the settlement and should have applied for an appointment of the mother to so act. The defendant denied that there was any basis for the judge in the underlying action to grant an application for such an appointment. The defendant also contended that the transcript of a discussion in chambers between himself, the judge and the plaintiff in the underlying case reflected that at the time, the plaintiff and her mother decided to reject the offer. The defendant argued that the plaintiff failed to establish a breach of any standard or proximate cause and moved for dismissal at the close of the plaintiff's case. The court concurred and dismissed the action.
REFERENCE Docket No.L-1449-99; Judge Thomas Brown, 9-02.
Responsible Attorney: Scott D. Samansky |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional negligence - Legal malpractice - Alleged negligent failure of plaintiff's attorney in underlying red light/green light intersection collision case to adequately detail plaintiff's position regarding times and distances from traffic light. Plaintiff found 50% comparatively negligent in the prior trial of underlying action, allegedly as a result of defendant's negligence. Liability only.
Essex County,
New Jersey
This was a legal malpractice action involving an underlying plaintiff who was found 50% comparatively negligent in the prior red light/green light intersection collision jury trial. The plaintiff contended that the defendant attorney did not discuss the distance from the intersection when the turn arrow light changed green and that as a result, the underlying defense counsel was able to utilize this omission to perform mathematical calculations to reflect that based upon speed and distance, the plaintiff would have proceeded through a red light. The plaintiff contended that her attorney, the defendant in this case, had incorrectly placed her twice as far from the intersection when the light turned to a full green, contrary to her deposition testimony and interrogatory answers. There was no eyewitness testimony as to the happening of the accident in the underlying trial, and the plaintiff contended that a particularly complete explanation of her description was, therefore, especially necessary. The plaintiff argued that if the defendant attorney had fully explained her description to the jury, they probably would have assessed a lower percentage of comparative negligence. The defendant contended that the case was properly presented and denied that there was any evidence from which a jury in this malpractice action should find that any different presentation in the underlying action would have impacted on that jury. The defendant attorney maintained that he had made a conscious decision not to elicit the 100-foot testimony from his client. The plaintiff argued that the defendant attorney had not made such a decision. The judge in this legal malpractice case directed a verdict in the plaintiff's favor on two of three contentions of negligence, finding that the attorney's statements in summation as to her speed and distance at 200 feet were negligent as a matter of law. The jury found for the defendant on the issue of proximate cause.
REFERENCE Plaintiff's expert attorney: Anthony Abrosio from
Belleville, N.J. Defendant's expert attorney: Richard A. Amdur from
Eatontown,
N.J. Plt: Cobb. Docket L-2464-97; Judge Edith Payne, 12-30-01.
Attorney for plaintiff: Marc E. Lesser in
Roseland,
N.J. Responsible Attorney: Scott D. Samansky |
|
|
|
|
|
|
In favor of third-party defendant in subsequent third-party action $150,000 recovery
Negligent failure to clear room before testing sprinkler system. Explosion. Pipe strikes wall causing extremely loud noise. Significant bilateral hearing loss. Explosion allegedly caused by defectively manufactured coupling.
Mercer County,
New Jersey
This was an action involving a plaintiff electrician in his mid-50s who was performing work in a small room of an office building nearing completion. At the time of the incident in question, a test of the sprinkler system was conducted by the defendant sprinkler installation company. The plaintiff was not employed by the defendant and was involved in different work. The plaintiff contended that during the test, an explosion occurred, propelling a pipe against an adjacent wall. The plaintiff was not struck by the pipe. However, the plaintiff maintained that the extremely loud noise caused a significant hearing loss and tinnitus which is permanent in nature. The plaintiff had contended that irrespective of the cause of the failure, the defendant was negligent in failing to clear the room before the test was conducted. The defendant questioned the extent of the hearing loss caused by the incident, contending that although the audiology testing showed some deficits, there were no prior tests with which to make a comparison. The plaintiff contended that he had no prior hearing difficulties. The plaintiff's case against the defendant sprinkler installation company settled prior to trial. The defendant sprinkler installation company brought a third-party action against the manufacturer of a coupling used in the sprinkler system and maintained that the coupling was defectively manufactured, causing the explosion. The defendant contended that a vein of rust was noted on the coupling after the explosion. The defendant contended that the failure of the coupling would not have occurred unless it was defectively manufactured and that the vein of rust reflected such a defect. The third-party defendant denied that the coupling was defective or that the vein of rust was significant. The third-party defendant contended that the malfunction occurred as a result of improper installation. The sprinkler installation company settled with the plaintiff during trial for $150,000. The jury found that the defendant/third-party plaintiff had not proven that the coupling was defective and a no-cause verdict was entered on the third-party action against the manufacturer.
REFERENCE Laurendeau vs. Meadowlands Fire Protection Co. vs. Victaulic Company of America, et al. Docket no. L-4597-96; Judge Jane Grall, 6-01. Responsible Attorney: Scott D. Samansky |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal Malpractice - Alleged negligent failure of attorney to advise condo association of claim for property damage before condo association takes control from developer and executes indemnification and hold harmless agreement in favor of developer.
Bergen
County
The plaintiff condominium association, comprised of condo owners, contended that the defendant attorney, who represented it in its dealings with the developer while it took control from the developer and in conjunction with typical transactions of this nature, executed a release, indemnification and hold harmless agreement in favor of the developer, negligently failed to ascertain the existence of a substantial property damage claim against the developer that was outstanding. The plaintiff maintained that as a result, it was liable for this claim. The defendant contended that he had a limited role, was only asked to forward the documents to the prior non-party attorney and denied that he had breached any duty. The defendant also argued that the underlying claim was a subrogation suit authorized by the plaintiff association and that it should have known about this claim. The plaintiff countered that at the time the association was substantially made up of prior owners and the plaintiffs did not have knowledge. The defendant established that one owner was a member at the time the prior claim had been made against the developer and argued that the association had notice without any advisements by counsel. The case was tried before the Court. The Court held that the defendant was not negligent. The plaintiff has filed an appeal.
REFERENCE Plt: Cross Creek Condo Assn. Docket no. L-5414-95; Judge Martin L. Kole, 1-99.
Responsible Attorney: Scott D. Samansky |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Slip and fall on ice and snow in store parking lot. Alleged inadequate access for pedestrian traffic. Liability only
Hudson
County
The male plaintiff in his early 40's contended that the defendant negligently failed to adequately clear ice and snow from its parking lot, resulting in his tripping and falling. The defendant maintained that the driveway leading to the parking lot was cleared and that the plaintiff chose to cross over the median area, causing the accident. The plaintiff maintained that there was no direct pedestrian walkway to the parking lot and that it was safer to walk on the median than to go to the cleared opening. The defendant also elicited testimony from the plaintiff that the median was the shorter route and the defendant argued that the plaintiff placed expediency above his own safety. The jury found that the defendant was not negligent.
REFERENCE Perez vs. The Sports Authority. Docket no. L-3633-96; Judge James W. Taylor, 4-99. Attorney for plaintiff: Marvin Walden of Greenberg & Walden in West New York Responsible Attorney: Scott D. Samansky |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Morrissey v. Value City – Atlantic County
Fall down escalator which allegedly stopped.
The female plaintiff contended defendant store and service company negligently failed to maintain an escalator whereby it suddenly stopped causing plaintiff to fall forward and suffer a variety of injuries. Defendants demonstrated plaintiff’s engineer’s opinion as to the cause of the stoppage was inconclusive. The jury found the defendants were not negligent. Responsible Attorney: Scott D. Samansky |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
