Woman sues nephew for $127K after she fell at his 8th-birthday pa (1 Viewer)

[mr roboto]

I don't get the #####ing about lawyers in here. They were right, rational, informative and generally respectful. I learned a lot about this part of our medical/insurance cluster ####.

The embarrassment should be on posters who can't seem to think in a straight line and have no idea just how many assumptions they are making.

 

[Henry Ford]

9 pages on this

This is why we make all the lawyers stay in their own thread.

One of these days, once they're all contained in there, we'll slowly start filling it with water.

Yeah, its really annoying how Henry Ford correctly guessed exactly what was going on here almost as soon as the OP went up, meaning anyone who read the thread with an open mind understood the situation two days before all the other people who were busy throwing hissy fits about it.

I hate when threads give me unique information and insight from other posters!

He did correctly guess what had happened, but somehow the lawyers still can't understand that the suit was frivolous regardless. This is pretty clearly something that should be paid by medical insurance, not homeowner's insurance. That's what makes it frivolous.

Once again, the fact that she lost doesn't mean it was frivolous.

 

[Henry Ford]

Here, I've got a good example actually.

Woman goes to her friend's house, has two beers over a several hour period, eats dinner, goes to leave. As she is leaving, she misjudges the bottom stair, steps weirdly, breaks her ankle, and the bone shoots through her skin. She ends up requiring multiple surgeries. It's her right ankle and she drives a cab for a living, so she's out of work for months.

She makes a claim with the homeowner's insurer. Insurer denies. She ends up losing her house, her kids have to go live with a family member because she's homeless and couch surfing, can't even afford her pain meds. So she files suit. Fortunately, in a state where she can sue the insurance company directly.

Frivolous?

 

[Christo]

9 pages on this

This is why we make all the lawyers stay in their own thread.

One of these days, once they're all contained in there, we'll slowly start filling it with water.

Yeah, its really annoying how Henry Ford correctly guessed exactly what was going on here almost as soon as the OP went up, meaning anyone who read the thread with an open mind understood the situation two days before all the other people who were busy throwing hissy fits about it.

I hate when threads give me unique information and insight from other posters!

He did correctly guess what had happened, but somehow the lawyers still can't understand that the suit was frivolous regardless. This is pretty clearly something that should be paid by medical insurance, not homeowner's insurance. That's what makes it frivolous.

 

[James Daulton]

Here, I've got a good example actually.

Woman goes to her friend's house, has two beers over a several hour period, eats dinner, goes to leave. As she is leaving, she misjudges the bottom stair, steps weirdly, breaks her ankle, and the bone shoots through her skin. She ends up requiring multiple surgeries. It's her right ankle and she drives a cab for a living, so she's out of work for months.

She makes a claim with the homeowner's insurer. Insurer denies. She ends up losing her house, her kids have to go love with a family member because she's homeless and couch surfing, can't even afford her pain meds. So she files suit. Fortunately, in a state where she can sue the insurance company directly.

Frivolous?

Her kids had to love with another family member? That's serious man.

 

[Henry Ford]

Here, I've got a good example actually.

Woman goes to her friend's house, has two beers over a several hour period, eats dinner, goes to leave. As she is leaving, she misjudges the bottom stair, steps weirdly, breaks her ankle, and the bone shoots through her skin. She ends up requiring multiple surgeries. It's her right ankle and she drives a cab for a living, so she's out of work for months.

She makes a claim with the homeowner's insurer. Insurer denies. She ends up losing her house, her kids have to go love with a family member because she's homeless and couch surfing, can't even afford her pain meds. So she files suit. Fortunately, in a state where she can sue the insurance company directly.

Frivolous?

Her kids had to love with another family member? That's serious man.

Thanks, I also hate typos.

 

[James Daulton]

Here, I've got a good example actually.

Woman goes to her friend's house, has two beers over a several hour period, eats dinner, goes to leave. As she is leaving, she misjudges the bottom stair, steps weirdly, breaks her ankle, and the bone shoots through her skin. She ends up requiring multiple surgeries. It's her right ankle and she drives a cab for a living, so she's out of work for months.

She makes a claim with the homeowner's insurer. Insurer denies. She ends up losing her house, her kids have to go love with a family member because she's homeless and couch surfing, can't even afford her pain meds. So she files suit. Fortunately, in a state where she can sue the insurance company directly.

Frivolous?

Her kids had to love with another family member? That's serious man.

Thanks, I also hate typos.

Isn't one of a lawyer's main jobs, besides filming commercials and filing frivolous lawsuits, making sure their writing has no typos?

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Here, I've got a good example actually.

Woman goes to her friend's house, has two beers over a several hour period, eats dinner, goes to leave. As she is leaving, she misjudges the bottom stair, steps weirdly, breaks her ankle, and the bone shoots through her skin. She ends up requiring multiple surgeries. It's her right ankle and she drives a cab for a living, so she's out of work for months.

She makes a claim with the homeowner's insurer. Insurer denies. She ends up losing her house, her kids have to go love with a family member because she's homeless and couch surfing, can't even afford her pain meds. So she files suit. Fortunately, in a state where she can sue the insurance company directly.

Frivolous?

Her kids had to love with another family member? That's serious man.

Thanks, I also hate typos.

Isn't one of a lawyer's main jobs, besides filming commercials and filing frivolous lawsuits, making sure their writing has no typos?

Myself, I try to avoid hippos.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Here, I've got a good example actually.

Woman goes to her friend's house, has two beers over a several hour period, eats dinner, goes to leave. As she is leaving, she misjudges the bottom stair, steps weirdly, breaks her ankle, and the bone shoots through her skin. She ends up requiring multiple surgeries. It's her right ankle and she drives a cab for a living, so she's out of work for months.

She makes a claim with the homeowner's insurer. Insurer denies. She ends up losing her house, her kids have to go live with a family member because she's homeless and couch surfing, can't even afford her pain meds. So she files suit. Fortunately, in a state where she can sue the insurance company directly.

Frivolous?

What the hell does she file suit for?

 

[FattyVM]

Here, I've got a good example actually.

Woman goes to her friend's house, has two beers over a several hour period, eats dinner, goes to leave. As she is leaving, she misjudges the bottom stair, steps weirdly, breaks her ankle, and the bone shoots through her skin. She ends up requiring multiple surgeries. It's her right ankle and she drives a cab for a living, so she's out of work for months.

She makes a claim with the homeowner's insurer. Insurer denies. She ends up losing her house, her kids have to go live with a family member because she's homeless and couch surfing, can't even afford her pain meds. So she files suit. Fortunately, in a state where she can sue the insurance company directly.

Frivolous?

What the hell does she file suit for?

Tort. Possibly negligence, duty owed by a possessor of real estate to someone who enters the property.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Here, I've got a good example actually.

Woman goes to her friend's house, has two beers over a several hour period, eats dinner, goes to leave. As she is leaving, she misjudges the bottom stair, steps weirdly, breaks her ankle, and the bone shoots through her skin. She ends up requiring multiple surgeries. It's her right ankle and she drives a cab for a living, so she's out of work for months.

She makes a claim with the homeowner's insurer. Insurer denies. She ends up losing her house, her kids have to go live with a family member because she's homeless and couch surfing, can't even afford her pain meds. So she files suit. Fortunately, in a state where she can sue the insurance company directly.

Frivolous?

What the hell does she file suit for?

Tort. Possibly negligence, duty owed by a possessor of real estate to someone who enters the property.

How is it possibly negligence? She misjudged the bottom stair and stepped weirdly.

Did she get her lawyer at the ER? Was he waiting there passing out business cards?

 

[FattyVM]

I'm not a lawyer guy, i'm only still in school. And in the stair hypothetical, my response would have likely been a claim toward the homeowners. Henry Ford likely had something else in mind when he was talking about a claim directed against the insurance company.

But, in general though, people who possess real estate have a duty to people depending on the reason they are on their property. For those invited, it's typically a duty to reasonably inspect and maintain the property in order to ensure it is reasonably safe, and have an affirmative duty to warn the invitee of dangers that the invitee could not reasonably be expected to discover.

If that stair was wobbly, but looked fine, was weirdly colored, not well lit, or oddly spaced compared to the other stairs? There's usually some bs argument to be made.

 

[parasaurolophus]

I'm not a lawyer guy, i'm only still in school. And in the stair hypothetical, my response would have likely been a claim toward the homeowners. Henry Ford likely had something else in mind when he was talking about a claim directed against the insurance company.

But, in general though, people who possess real estate have a duty to people depending on the reason they are on their property. For those invited, it's typically a duty to reasonably inspect and maintain the property in order to ensure it is reasonably safe, and have an affirmative duty to warn the invitee of dangers that the invitee could not reasonably be expected to discover.

I think the last stair on a flight of stairs should be reasonably discovered. There have been like 13 stairs to prepare you for that difficult journey.

 

[FattyVM]

I'm not a lawyer guy, i'm only still in school. And in the stair hypothetical, my response would have likely been a claim toward the homeowners. Henry Ford likely had something else in mind when he was talking about a claim directed against the insurance company.

But, in general though, people who possess real estate have a duty to people depending on the reason they are on their property. For those invited, it's typically a duty to reasonably inspect and maintain the property in order to ensure it is reasonably safe, and have an affirmative duty to warn the invitee of dangers that the invitee could not reasonably be expected to discover.

I think the last stair on a flight of stairs should be reasonably discovered. There have been like 13 stairs to prepare you for that difficult journey.

*shrug* I don't like those people either. I'm just saying.

 

[matttyl]

Here, I've got a good example actually.

Woman goes to her friend's house, has two beers over a several hour period, eats dinner, goes to leave. As she is leaving, she misjudges the bottom stair, steps weirdly, breaks her ankle, and the bone shoots through her skin. She ends up requiring multiple surgeries. It's her right ankle and she drives a cab for a living, so she's out of work for months.

She makes a claim with the homeowner's insurer. Insurer denies. She ends up losing her house, her kids have to go live with a family member because she's homeless and couch surfing, can't even afford her pain meds. So she files suit. Fortunately, in a state where she can sue the insurance company directly.

Frivolous?

Did she have medical insurance? Did she have disability insurance? If no to either question - why?

 

[RCon]

9 pages on this

This is why we make all the lawyers stay in their own thread.

One of these days, once they're all contained in there, we'll slowly start filling it with water.

Yeah, its really annoying how Henry Ford correctly guessed exactly what was going on here almost as soon as the OP went up, meaning anyone who read the thread with an open mind understood the situation two days before all the other people who were busy throwing hissy fits about it.

I hate when threads give me unique information and insight from other posters!

He did correctly guess what had happened, but somehow the lawyers still can't understand that the suit was frivolous regardless. This is pretty clearly something that should be paid by medical insurance, not homeowner's insurance. That's what makes it frivolous.

Once again, the fact that she lost doesn't mean it was frivolous.

Agreed. I said it was frivolous before I knew the result.

 

[RCon]

Here, I've got a good example actually.

Woman goes to her friend's house, has two beers over a several hour period, eats dinner, goes to leave. As she is leaving, she misjudges the bottom stair, steps weirdly, breaks her ankle, and the bone shoots through her skin. She ends up requiring multiple surgeries. It's her right ankle and she drives a cab for a living, so she's out of work for months.

She makes a claim with the homeowner's insurer. Insurer denies. She ends up losing her house, her kids have to go live with a family member because she's homeless and couch surfing, can't even afford her pain meds. So she files suit. Fortunately, in a state where she can sue the insurance company directly.

Frivolous?

Did she have medical insurance? Did she have disability insurance? If no to either question - why?

Exactly. Homeowners insurance isn't to provide coverage in case a guest, or resident, is an idiot.To use your example, pretend the injury happened to the homeowner himself. He wouldn't be claiming against his homeowners insurance.

Now, perhaps there's a negligence case to be made, if the stairs were dangerous, but again, the claim shouldn't be against homeowners insurance, but against homeowner himself, and an umbrella policy if one exists. The point is, in no case does it make sense to require the homeowners insurance to pay.

 

[Zow]

Yep, still painful.

 

[Clifford]

Here, I've got a good example actually.

Woman goes to her friend's house, has two beers over a several hour period, eats dinner, goes to leave. As she is leaving, she misjudges the bottom stair, steps weirdly, breaks her ankle, and the bone shoots through her skin. She ends up requiring multiple surgeries. It's her right ankle and she drives a cab for a living, so she's out of work for months.

She makes a claim with the homeowner's insurer. Insurer denies. She ends up losing her house, her kids have to go live with a family member because she's homeless and couch surfing, can't even afford her pain meds. So she files suit. Fortunately, in a state where she can sue the insurance company directly.

Frivolous?

Depends on whether the homeowner's insurance policy covers an accident of personal injury occurring in the home and is not protected by a liability statement stating the insurance not responsible if injured party consumed alcohol or was inebriated prior to event? Oh and tortfeasor.

 

[Henry Ford]

Here, I've got a good example actually.

Woman goes to her friend's house, has two beers over a several hour period, eats dinner, goes to leave. As she is leaving, she misjudges the bottom stair, steps weirdly, breaks her ankle, and the bone shoots through her skin. She ends up requiring multiple surgeries. It's her right ankle and she drives a cab for a living, so she's out of work for months.

She makes a claim with the homeowner's insurer. Insurer denies. She ends up losing her house, her kids have to go love with a family member because she's homeless and couch surfing, can't even afford her pain meds. So she files suit. Fortunately, in a state where she can sue the insurance company directly.

Frivolous?

Her kids had to love with another family member? That's serious man.

Thanks, I also hate typos.

Isn't one of a lawyer's main jobs, besides filming commercials and filing frivolous lawsuits, making sure their writing has no typos?

Yes, that's probably why I don't type my briefs on a cell phone using autocorrect.

 

[Henry Ford]

I'm not a lawyer guy, i'm only still in school. And in the stair hypothetical, my response would have likely been a claim toward the homeowners. Henry Ford likely had something else in mind when he was talking about a claim directed against the insurance company.

But, in general though, people who possess real estate have a duty to people depending on the reason they are on their property. For those invited, it's typically a duty to reasonably inspect and maintain the property in order to ensure it is reasonably safe, and have an affirmative duty to warn the invitee of dangers that the invitee could not reasonably be expected to discover.

If that stair was wobbly, but looked fine, was weirdly colored, not well lit, or oddly spaced compared to the other stairs? There's usually some bs argument to be made.

Ding.

You'll do fine as a lawyer. Stay in school.

 

[Henry Ford]

Here, I've got a good example actually.

Woman goes to her friend's house, has two beers over a several hour period, eats dinner, goes to leave. As she is leaving, she misjudges the bottom stair, steps weirdly, breaks her ankle, and the bone shoots through her skin. She ends up requiring multiple surgeries. It's her right ankle and she drives a cab for a living, so she's out of work for months.

She makes a claim with the homeowner's insurer. Insurer denies. She ends up losing her house, her kids have to go live with a family member because she's homeless and couch surfing, can't even afford her pain meds. So she files suit. Fortunately, in a state where she can sue the insurance company directly.

Frivolous?

Did she have medical insurance? Did she have disability insurance? If no to either question - why?

Exactly. Homeowners insurance isn't to provide coverage in case a guest, or resident, is an idiot.To use your example, pretend the injury happened to the homeowner himself. He wouldn't be claiming against his homeowners insurance.

Now, perhaps there's a negligence case to be made, if the stairs were dangerous, but again, the claim shouldn't be against homeowners insurance, but against homeowner himself, and an umbrella policy if one exists. The point is, in no case does it make sense to require the homeowners insurance to pay.

Uh, no. The homeowners insurance kicks in before an umbrella policy in this instance. It's the whole reason you have homeowners liability - dangerous conditions with the home.

 

[Hang 10]

Where'd the $127k come from? That's way more than just medical bills.

Likely not if she didn't have medical insurance. That part is never addressed here. If she had medical insurance, why didn't it pay for her medical bills?

And if she didn't have medical insurance, then again I say this whole thing is on her.

Yeah, it's interesting that she never mentioned her own insurance coverage in her defense. Still #theauntfromhell imo.

Parties are not allowed to mention insurance in trials.

I'm not talking about the trial but the interview she did after.

 

[Hang 10]

Here, I've got a good example actually.

Woman goes to her friend's house, has two beers over a several hour period, eats dinner, goes to leave. As she is leaving, she misjudges the bottom stair, steps weirdly, breaks her ankle, and the bone shoots through her skin. She ends up requiring multiple surgeries. It's her right ankle and she drives a cab for a living, so she's out of work for months.

She makes a claim with the homeowner's insurer. Insurer denies. She ends up losing her house, her kids have to go live with a family member because she's homeless and couch surfing, can't even afford her pain meds. So she files suit. Fortunately, in a state where she can sue the insurance company directly.

Frivolous?

What if it happened at her own house. Does her homeowners insurance pay the bills?

 

[Arizona Ron]

I really blame the media for blowing this up without doing their homework (but what's new).

 

[Henry Ford]

Here, I've got a good example actually.

Woman goes to her friend's house, has two beers over a several hour period, eats dinner, goes to leave. As she is leaving, she misjudges the bottom stair, steps weirdly, breaks her ankle, and the bone shoots through her skin. She ends up requiring multiple surgeries. It's her right ankle and she drives a cab for a living, so she's out of work for months.

She makes a claim with the homeowner's insurer. Insurer denies. She ends up losing her house, her kids have to go live with a family member because she's homeless and couch surfing, can't even afford her pain meds. So she files suit. Fortunately, in a state where she can sue the insurance company directly.

Frivolous?

What if it happened at her own house. Does her homeowners insurance pay the bills?

Liability insurance doesn't cover you getting hurt. It covers other people getting hurt, because you're the one who's liable.

 

[Hang 10]

Here, I've got a good example actually.

Woman goes to her friend's house, has two beers over a several hour period, eats dinner, goes to leave. As she is leaving, she misjudges the bottom stair, steps weirdly, breaks her ankle, and the bone shoots through her skin. She ends up requiring multiple surgeries. It's her right ankle and she drives a cab for a living, so she's out of work for months.

She makes a claim with the homeowner's insurer. Insurer denies. She ends up losing her house, her kids have to go live with a family member because she's homeless and couch surfing, can't even afford her pain meds. So she files suit. Fortunately, in a state where she can sue the insurance company directly.

Frivolous?

What if it happened at her own house. Does her homeowners insurance pay the bills?

Liability insurance doesn't cover you getting hurt. It covers other people getting hurt, because you're the one who's liable.

Maybe I just don't understand why someone else would be liable when it's you that can't walk down steps.

 

[Henry Ford]

Here, I've got a good example actually.

Woman goes to her friend's house, has two beers over a several hour period, eats dinner, goes to leave. As she is leaving, she misjudges the bottom stair, steps weirdly, breaks her ankle, and the bone shoots through her skin. She ends up requiring multiple surgeries. It's her right ankle and she drives a cab for a living, so she's out of work for months.

She makes a claim with the homeowner's insurer. Insurer denies. She ends up losing her house, her kids have to go live with a family member because she's homeless and couch surfing, can't even afford her pain meds. So she files suit. Fortunately, in a state where she can sue the insurance company directly.

Frivolous?

What if it happened at her own house. Does her homeowners insurance pay the bills?

Liability insurance doesn't cover you getting hurt. It covers other people getting hurt, because you're the one who's liable.

Maybe I just don't understand why someone else would be liable when it's you that can't walk down steps.

Because, lo and behold, as Fatty guessed, the last step was half the distance down from the rest of the steps. Which is a code violation. And the reason she misjudged it in the dark. Also, it was darker than it should have been because the porch light was out. That's why she misjudged it.

It's that little bit of information that you don't get out of news articles on a case, that actually makes a huge difference in whether a lawsuit is reasonable or not. And reporters don't have any idea whether to ask those kinds of questions.

 

[the moops]

Maybe I just don't understand why someone else would be liable when it's you that can't walk down steps.

Imagine the steps are in far worse condition than Henry explained (missing steps, no handrail, too steep, etc).Could you understand in that case someone being liable? If so, now imagine a new set of stairs that is slightly better condition, but still ####ty. Can you understand that someone would still be liable in that case?

Now keep going with the improvements to you get to a point where you imagine nobody is liable. And now imagine that everyone has a different view on how ####ty steps need to be in order for liability to kick in.

 

[Hang 10]

And they would be liable if there was slip n slide on the last step too but you left that information out of your post, on purpose I guess.

 

[Doug B]

It's that little bit of information that you don't get out of news articles on a case, that actually makes a huge difference in whether a lawsuit is reasonable or not. And reporters don't have any idea whether to ask those kinds of questions.

All of these points are well taken.

What's hard about a case like the one in the OP ... specifically that case: how do you make a layman jury NOT summarily assume the case if frivolous? I mean, you are representing your plaintiff Connell ... and there is a 12-year-old in the defendant's chair ... and the jury understands that the event happened when the kid was 8. As an attorney, how do you even approach that?

Sounded like the judge was trying to help the jury make sense of what all had to know looked really odd to the layman as he instructed: "Remember, what would a prudent 8-year-old do? Prudent." But heck -- to most all laymen, no conceivable 8-year-old can be "prudent". A lot of people would dismiss that out of hand as an oxymoron. While the jurors -- remember, they didn't go to law school -- probably listened dutifully, there was probably little that would have swayed them to find an 8-year-old negligent given the known facts of this case.

 

[Henry Ford]

It's that little bit of information that you don't get out of news articles on a case, that actually makes a huge difference in whether a lawsuit is reasonable or not. And reporters don't have any idea whether to ask those kinds of questions.

All of these points are well taken.

What's hard about a case like the one in the OP ... specifically that case: how do you make a layman jury NOT summarily assume the case if frivolous? I mean, you are representing your plaintiff Connell ... and there is a 12-year-old in the defendant's chair ... and the jury understands that the event happened when the kid was 8. As an attorney, how do you even approach that?

Sounded like the judge was trying to help the jury make sense of what all had to know looked really odd to the layman as he instructed: "Remember, what would a prudent 8-year-old do? Prudent." But heck -- to most all laymen, no conceivable 8-year-old can be "prudent". A lot of people would dismiss that out of hand as an oxymoron. While the jurors -- remember, they didn't go to law school -- probably listened dutifully, there was probably little that would have swayed them to find an 8-year-old negligent given the known facts of this case.

Yeah, I mean, that's why at best he had an uphill battle. I think you have to start with educating the jury, which makes it tough. You have to have a plaintiff who can explain why this was completely out of line, and how incredibly imprudent what the kid did was.

Honestly, if for some reason I'm forced to take this case, I stipulate that the amount in controversy is low enough that they're not entitled to a jury and give the case to the judge.

Edit: Just checked. In Connecticut, that's apparently $250.00. So... ouch. Around here, it's $50K.

 

[jonessed]

Not seeing what hazardous aspect of the house was involved here. I suppose she could argue that her nephew as the hazard, but that's quite a stretch.

I guess she is hoping insurance will still settle for a small portion of what she is asking to avoid going to court.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Here, I've got a good example actually.

Woman goes to her friend's house, has two beers over a several hour period, eats dinner, goes to leave. As she is leaving, she misjudges the bottom stair, steps weirdly, breaks her ankle, and the bone shoots through her skin. She ends up requiring multiple surgeries. It's her right ankle and she drives a cab for a living, so she's out of work for months.

She makes a claim with the homeowner's insurer. Insurer denies. She ends up losing her house, her kids have to go live with a family member because she's homeless and couch surfing, can't even afford her pain meds. So she files suit. Fortunately, in a state where she can sue the insurance company directly.

Frivolous?

What if it happened at her own house. Does her homeowners insurance pay the bills?

Liability insurance doesn't cover you getting hurt. It covers other people getting hurt, because you're the one who's liable.

Maybe I just don't understand why someone else would be liable when it's you that can't walk down steps.

I never did much slip-and-fall work, but back in the day it was pretty easy to defeat a typical slip-and-fall case.

Generally speaking, it used to be that a landowner was liable for defects on the property, if they had superior knowledge of the defect.

So, for a typical Slip-and-fall, you depose the plaintiff, and you get to the part about the accident:

Lawyer: Did you see the [water on the floor] before you fell?

Plaintiff: (nobody wants to admit that they saw the "defect", and in fact it is usually fatal to their claim - because then the landowner no longer had "superior" knowledge) No, I never saw that the [floor was wet].

Lawyer: After your fall, did you see the defect?

Plaintiff: Can still go two ways here - Yes. I landed in the puddle, or No, I never saw what caused me to slip. "No" is fatal because now you have no defect, so you usually get "yes", which leads to the final nail:

Lawyer: If you had been paying attention, could you have seen the defect before your fall?

Plaintiff: (The claim is already fatal by this point, but the plaintiff does not fully realize it) If plaintiff answers Yes - then they have failed in their own duty to exercise care by not watching where they were going. It is no defense to have been distracted by something on the shelf, to take your eyes off the floor. As a last ditch effort to save the case, most plaintiffs will say, no, even if they were watching where they were walking, they would not have seen the defect - because nothing is ever their fault. But, when they do that - they have precluded (in most cases) that the landowner could have seen the defect - thus the landowner does not have "superior" knowledge of the defect - and you win on a summary judgment.

If it is a supermarket, or store that regularly gets sued for slip-and-falls, they will have a "sweep log" showing that they took regular care to keep the floor clean and safe, and had no prior knowledge of the defect. Lawyer simply attaches that with an affidavit from the store manager, and the plaintiff had no chance.

 

[cstu]

Here, I've got a good example actually.

Woman goes to her friend's house, has two beers over a several hour period, eats dinner, goes to leave. As she is leaving, she misjudges the bottom stair, steps weirdly, breaks her ankle, and the bone shoots through her skin. She ends up requiring multiple surgeries. It's her right ankle and she drives a cab for a living, so she's out of work for months.

She makes a claim with the homeowner's insurer. Insurer denies. She ends up losing her house, her kids have to go live with a family member because she's homeless and couch surfing, can't even afford her pain meds. So she files suit. Fortunately, in a state where she can sue the insurance company directly.

Frivolous?

What if it happened at her own house. Does her homeowners insurance pay the bills?

Liability insurance doesn't cover you getting hurt. It covers other people getting hurt, because you're the one who's liable.

Maybe I just don't understand why someone else would be liable when it's you that can't walk down steps.

Because, lo and behold, as Fatty guessed, the last step was half the distance down from the rest of the steps. Which is a code violation. And the reason she misjudged it in the dark. Also, it was darker than it should have been because the porch light was out. That's why she misjudged it.

It's that little bit of information that you don't get out of news articles on a case, that actually makes a huge difference in whether a lawsuit is reasonable or not. And reporters don't have any idea whether to ask those kinds of questions.

Still think she could have got a non-driving job so she didn't end up homeless.

 

[Christo]

Here, I've got a good example actually.

Woman goes to her friend's house, has two beers over a several hour period, eats dinner, goes to leave. As she is leaving, she misjudges the bottom stair, steps weirdly, breaks her ankle, and the bone shoots through her skin. She ends up requiring multiple surgeries. It's her right ankle and she drives a cab for a living, so she's out of work for months.

She makes a claim with the homeowner's insurer. Insurer denies. She ends up losing her house, her kids have to go live with a family member because she's homeless and couch surfing, can't even afford her pain meds. So she files suit. Fortunately, in a state where she can sue the insurance company directly.

Frivolous?

What if it happened at her own house. Does her homeowners insurance pay the bills?

Liability insurance doesn't cover you getting hurt. It covers other people getting hurt, because you're the one who's liable.

Maybe I just don't understand why someone else would be liable when it's you that can't walk down steps.

I never did much slip-and-fall work, but back in the day it was pretty easy to defeat a typical slip-and-fall case.

Generally speaking, it used to be that a landowner was liable for defects on the property, if they had superior knowledge of the defect.

So, for a typical Slip-and-fall, you depose the plaintiff, and you get to the part about the accident:

Lawyer: Did you see the [water on the floor] before you fell?

Plaintiff: (nobody wants to admit that they saw the "defect", and in fact it is usually fatal to their claim - because then the landowner no longer had "superior" knowledge) No, I never saw that the [floor was wet].

Lawyer: After your fall, did you see the defect?

Plaintiff: Can still go two ways here - Yes. I landed in the puddle, or No, I never saw what caused me to slip. "No" is fatal because now you have no defect, so you usually get "yes", which leads to the final nail:

Lawyer: If you had been paying attention, could you have seen the defect before your fall?

Plaintiff: (The claim is already fatal by this point, but the plaintiff does not fully realize it) If plaintiff answers Yes - then they have failed in their own duty to exercise care by not watching where they were going. It is no defense to have been distracted by something on the shelf, to take your eyes off the floor. As a last ditch effort to save the case, most plaintiffs will say, no, even if they were watching where they were walking, they would not have seen the defect - because nothing is ever their fault. But, when they do that - they have precluded (in most cases) that the landowner could have seen the defect - thus the landowner does not have "superior" knowledge of the defect - and you win on a summary judgment.

If it is a supermarket, or store that regularly gets sued for slip-and-falls, they will have a "sweep log" showing that they took regular care to keep the floor clean and safe, and had no prior knowledge of the defect. Lawyer simply attaches that with an affidavit from the store manager, and the plaintiff had no chance.

Objection, ambiguous. Objection, calls for speculation. NWIH you win that on summary judgment with a half way competent lawyer on the other side.

 

[cstu]

Lawyer: If you had been paying attention, could you have seen the defect before your fall?

Plaintiff: (The claim is already fatal by this point, but the plaintiff does not fully realize it) If plaintiff answers Yes - then they have failed in their own duty to exercise care by not watching where they were going. It is no defense to have been distracted by something on the shelf, to take your eyes off the floor.

As a last ditch effort to save the case, most plaintiffs will say, no, even if they were watching where they were walking, they would not have seen the defect - because nothing is ever their fault. But, when they do that - they have precluded (in most cases) that the landowner could have seen the defect - thus the landowner does not have "superior" knowledge of the defect - and you win on a summary judgment.

Wouldn't a homeowner who has had the opportunity to see the defect hundreds of time more likely to the have 'superior' knowledge of the defect than the people who is there for the first time?

 

[SWC]

hey laywers we all accept your apology take that to the bank brohans

 

[Sinn Fein]

Here, I've got a good example actually.

Woman goes to her friend's house, has two beers over a several hour period, eats dinner, goes to leave. As she is leaving, she misjudges the bottom stair, steps weirdly, breaks her ankle, and the bone shoots through her skin. She ends up requiring multiple surgeries. It's her right ankle and she drives a cab for a living, so she's out of work for months.

She makes a claim with the homeowner's insurer. Insurer denies. She ends up losing her house, her kids have to go live with a family member because she's homeless and couch surfing, can't even afford her pain meds. So she files suit. Fortunately, in a state where she can sue the insurance company directly.

Frivolous?

What if it happened at her own house. Does her homeowners insurance pay the bills?

Liability insurance doesn't cover you getting hurt. It covers other people getting hurt, because you're the one who's liable.

Maybe I just don't understand why someone else would be liable when it's you that can't walk down steps.

I never did much slip-and-fall work, but back in the day it was pretty easy to defeat a typical slip-and-fall case.

Generally speaking, it used to be that a landowner was liable for defects on the property, if they had superior knowledge of the defect.

So, for a typical Slip-and-fall, you depose the plaintiff, and you get to the part about the accident:

Lawyer: Did you see the [water on the floor] before you fell?

Plaintiff: (nobody wants to admit that they saw the "defect", and in fact it is usually fatal to their claim - because then the landowner no longer had "superior" knowledge) No, I never saw that the [floor was wet].

Lawyer: After your fall, did you see the defect?

Plaintiff: Can still go two ways here - Yes. I landed in the puddle, or No, I never saw what caused me to slip. "No" is fatal because now you have no defect, so you usually get "yes", which leads to the final nail:

Lawyer: If you had been paying attention, could you have seen the defect before your fall?

Plaintiff: (The claim is already fatal by this point, but the plaintiff does not fully realize it) If plaintiff answers Yes - then they have failed in their own duty to exercise care by not watching where they were going. It is no defense to have been distracted by something on the shelf, to take your eyes off the floor. As a last ditch effort to save the case, most plaintiffs will say, no, even if they were watching where they were walking, they would not have seen the defect - because nothing is ever their fault. But, when they do that - they have precluded (in most cases) that the landowner could have seen the defect - thus the landowner does not have "superior" knowledge of the defect - and you win on a summary judgment.

If it is a supermarket, or store that regularly gets sued for slip-and-falls, they will have a "sweep log" showing that they took regular care to keep the floor clean and safe, and had no prior knowledge of the defect. Lawyer simply attaches that with an affidavit from the store manager, and the plaintiff had no chance.

Objection, ambiguous. Objection, calls for speculation. NWIH you win that on summary judgment with a half way competent lawyer on the other side.

1. Attorney taking a slip and fall is generally not half-way competent. 2. I think had 3-4 premises liability cases - never went past SJ.

3. Buddy of mine made a career representing a grocery chain in Atlanta, his case load was easier than a workers comp attorney. had a standard affidavit for the store manager, the deposition was pretty much the same in every case, just fill in the blanks on the MSJ.

4. There are a few cases that could get past SJ stage, but you needed really good facts (known refrigerator leaks, known regular hazard - icy sidewalk in front, Etc.), and a non-competent defense lawyer. Typical slip and fall = SJ.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Eta - in addition to known leaks, etc. You still had to show that landowner failed to exert reasonable care - which is generally defeated with an affidavit by the store owner saying they took precautions - signs, or regular sweep, or de-icer...

 

[Sinn Fein]

Lawyer: If you had been paying attention, could you have seen the defect before your fall?

Plaintiff: (The claim is already fatal by this point, but the plaintiff does not fully realize it) If plaintiff answers Yes - then they have failed in their own duty to exercise care by not watching where they were going. It is no defense to have been distracted by something on the shelf, to take your eyes off the floor.

As a last ditch effort to save the case, most plaintiffs will say, no, even if they were watching where they were walking, they would not have seen the defect - because nothing is ever their fault. But, when they do that - they have precluded (in most cases) that the landowner could have seen the defect - thus the landowner does not have "superior" knowledge of the defect - and you win on a summary judgment.

Wouldn't a homeowner who has had the opportunity to see the defect hundreds of time more likely to the have 'superior' knowledge of the defect than the people who is there for the first time?

yes - but if the plaintiff knew, or with reasonable care should have known, then they have equal knowledge. This standard is also something that can vary from state to state.

Generally you do have to exercise reasonable care for your own safety.

 

[Clifford]

$6m

 

[James Daulton]

Lawyers are people too!

(bad people, but people nonetheless)

 

[Henry Ford]

Lawyer: If you had been paying attention, could you have seen the defect before your fall?

Plaintiff: (The claim is already fatal by this point, but the plaintiff does not fully realize it) If plaintiff answers Yes - then they have failed in their own duty to exercise care by not watching where they were going. It is no defense to have been distracted by something on the shelf, to take your eyes off the floor.

As a last ditch effort to save the case, most plaintiffs will say, no, even if they were watching where they were walking, they would not have seen the defect - because nothing is ever their fault. But, when they do that - they have precluded (in most cases) that the landowner could have seen the defect - thus the landowner does not have "superior" knowledge of the defect - and you win on a summary judgment.

Wouldn't a homeowner who has had the opportunity to see the defect hundreds of time more likely to the have 'superior' knowledge of the defect than the people who is there for the first time?

yes - but if the plaintiff knew, or with reasonable care should have known, then they have equal knowledge. This standard is also something that can vary from state to state.

Generally you do have to exercise reasonable care for your own safety.

Obviously, these standards are state specific, but slip/trip and fall cases still can and do get sizeable awards in many jurisdictions when warranted.The bad ones are completely worthless. But the good cases are very lucrative for a competent attorney.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Here, I've got a good example actually.

Woman goes to her friend's house, has two beers over a several hour period, eats dinner, goes to leave. As she is leaving, she misjudges the bottom stair, steps weirdly, breaks her ankle, and the bone shoots through her skin. She ends up requiring multiple surgeries. It's her right ankle and she drives a cab for a living, so she's out of work for months.

She makes a claim with the homeowner's insurer. Insurer denies. She ends up losing her house, her kids have to go live with a family member because she's homeless and couch surfing, can't even afford her pain meds. So she files suit. Fortunately, in a state where she can sue the insurance company directly.

Frivolous?

What if it happened at her own house. Does her homeowners insurance pay the bills?

Liability insurance doesn't cover you getting hurt. It covers other people getting hurt, because you're the one who's liable.

Maybe I just don't understand why someone else would be liable when it's you that can't walk down steps.

Because, lo and behold, as Fatty guessed, the last step was half the distance down from the rest of the steps. Which is a code violation. And the reason she misjudged it in the dark. Also, it was darker than it should have been because the porch light was out. That's why she misjudged it.

It's that little bit of information that you don't get out of news articles on a case, that actually makes a huge difference in whether a lawsuit is reasonable or not. And reporters don't have any idea whether to ask those kinds of questions.

I find it funny that you used this example(that you purposely left details out) to attempt to paint lawyers in a better light. It does just the opposite.

 

[flapgreen]

I'm guessing white trash.

 

[the moops]

Wasn't his point that we mostly don't have all the facts of a case and without them we are making ill informed judgments?

 

[Henry Ford]

Here, I've got a good example actually.

Woman goes to her friend's house, has two beers over a several hour period, eats dinner, goes to leave. As she is leaving, she misjudges the bottom stair, steps weirdly, breaks her ankle, and the bone shoots through her skin. She ends up requiring multiple surgeries. It's her right ankle and she drives a cab for a living, so she's out of work for months.

She makes a claim with the homeowner's insurer. Insurer denies. She ends up losing her house, her kids have to go live with a family member because she's homeless and couch surfing, can't even afford her pain meds. So she files suit. Fortunately, in a state where she can sue the insurance company directly.

Frivolous?

What if it happened at her own house. Does her homeowners insurance pay the bills?

Liability insurance doesn't cover you getting hurt. It covers other people getting hurt, because you're the one who's liable.

Maybe I just don't understand why someone else would be liable when it's you that can't walk down steps.

Because, lo and behold, as Fatty guessed, the last step was half the distance down from the rest of the steps. Which is a code violation. And the reason she misjudged it in the dark. Also, it was darker than it should have been because the porch light was out. That's why she misjudged it.It's that little bit of information that you don't get out of news articles on a case, that actually makes a huge difference in whether a lawsuit is reasonable or not. And reporters don't have any idea whether to ask those kinds of questions.

I find it funny that you used this example(that you purposely left details out) to attempt to paint lawyers in a better light. It does just the opposite.

I find it funny that you think that's what I was attempting to do.

 

[Insein]

So this is just an indirect insurance grab right? She waits 4 years to sue an 8 year old $127k after his mom dies? Convenient.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Wasn't his point that we mostly don't have all the facts of a case and without them we are making ill informed judgments?

Pretty sure his point was thank god that lawyers are around to ask the important questions that reporters don't ask. Things like discovering that a porch light were out and that a step was not exactly that same height! The horror! Thank god we have lawyers around to make sure that justice was done and that somebody paid.