Torn Meniscus Injury Cases Total $ Verdict Case Type Subcategory Facts

Transcription

1 Torn Meniscus Injury Cases Total Verdict Case Type Subcategory Facts 45, Settlement Premises Liability Fall Plaintiff fell in pothole in a store parking lot while exiting his vehicle. - Defense Negligent Elevator Maintenance - Plaintiff MVA-w/ DUI Sudden Stop Intersection Collison Plaintiff was on an elevator when it stopped and she fell to her knees, causing injury. The defendant in this case was Universal Studios. This case involved a DUI. The defendant did not deny that he was drunk. 41, Plaintiff MVA Car/Person This case was tried on damages only. The plaintiff was struck by a car at an auto auction by defendant's (auction) employee. There was a post-trial remittur of 10,000 granted to reduce future meds to Defense Premises Liability Trip-and-Fall Plaintiff fell in a hole in defendant's parking lot. Failure to Maintain Plaintiff tripped on a sidewalk maintained by Seminole County. The defendant county inspected the area 3 years prior and found that - Defense Public Sidewalk Trip and Fall repairs were needed. 30, Plaintiff MVA Rear-End None

2 298, Plaintiff Premises Liability Trip-and-Fall 4, CN: Plaintiff 40%; Defendant 60% Premises Liability Trip-and-Fall Plaintiff tripped and fell on some stairs at a hotel. The plaintiff claimed inadequate lighting. The verdict was reduced by 5000 in collateral source income. Judgment reduced to 2, for CN. Plaintiff fell into a 6" deep pothole at the defendant apartment complex. 24, CN: Plaintiff 70%; Defendant 30% Premises Liability Slip-and-Fall Plaintiff slipped and fell in mop water on store floor. 71, CN: Plaintiff 49%; Defendant: 51% Premises Liability Trip-and-Fall Plaintiff tripped on rolled carpet. - Defense MVA Collision This case involved an uninsured motorist. - Defense Premises Liability Trip-and-Fall - Defense MVA Rear-End 5, Plaintiff MVA Rear-End Plaintiff claimed he stumbled on a protruding piece of a lightning protection system. This case involved a rear-end accident where liability was admitted, but causation was disputed. The defendant's orthopedist said that the plaintiff did have a torn meniscus, but a meniscus could not be torn from a rear-end collision. The accident was minimal impact and the case was tried on damages/causation only. This case was tried on damages/causation only. The defense's orthopedist claimed degenerative changes that were mistaken for the tear and that the tear was not trauma related. 1, CN: Plaintiff 40%; Defendant 60% MVA Intersection Collison Judgment reduced to 703 for CN with a 10,000 collateral set-off that was applicable. Plaintiff's orthopedist confirmed a knee injury. The defense's orthopedist denied a knee injury.

3 127, Plaintiff MVA Parking Lot The jury found that plaintiff's fall was not causally related to the accident as she had claimed. There was an original tear on the left knee. The defendant didn't appear at trial. 77, Plaintiff MVA Intersection Collison UM claim. The defendant admitted liability, so the case was tried on damages only. The verdict was reduced by prior 60,000 settlements and 5,000 collateral source income. The plaintiff's orthopedist testified that she had been left with permanent residual limitations from her injury. 193, Plaintiff MVA Intersection Collison 22, Plaintiff Premises Liability Slip-and-Fall The defendant in this case was Target. CN: Plaintiff 50%; The case involved a rear-end, multi-car accident 10, Defendant 50% MVA Multi-Car involving a flatbed. Plaintiff tripped over a box of merchandise at the end of an aisle in a department store. She underwent a total knee replacement due to - Defense Premises Liability Trip-and-Fall meniscal tear. 28, Plaintiff MVA Stop Sign This case was tried on damages/causation only. The defense counsel utilized the open and obvious defense. The plaintiff's doctor concluded that he was left with minimal permanent injury.

4 None CN: Plaintiff 92%; 73, Defense 7% MVA Parking Lot None 199, CN: Plaintiff 40%; Defendant 60% MVA L Turn Collision The defendant passed prior to trial of unrelated causes and case proceeded against her estate. The jury did not originally give award for pain and suffering, but in light of them finding permanent injury, they were forced to, and gave 100. Plaintiff slipped on wet wooden floor. The defense claimed since restaurant was "western" themed, people could spit their peanut shells on the floor. 35, CN: Plaintiff 25%; Defendant 75% Premises Liability Trip-and-Fall Plaintiff fell on cellophane wrapping in a toy store. The defense claimed employees were assigned to aisles to maintain safety, but in crossexamination it was found that employees may leave their aisles and not return for several hours. 50, CN: Plaintiff 60%; Defendant 40% Products Liability Defective Bowling Shoe Plaintiff fell in a restaurant bathroom on water. He was originally diagnosed with a soft-tissue knee injury, but his knee locked up approximately 1 year after the accident and an ultrasound showed possible meniscal tear. Plaintiff rented a defective bowling shoe with a flapping sole and fell. The plaintiff found that defendant breached an implied warrantee by renting the shoe.

5 109, Plaintiff MVA Rear-End - Defense MVA Rear-End This case was tried on damages/causation only. The case is currently on appeal. The defense claimed that the plaintiff's MRI results were misinterpreted. The defendant admitted liability, but disputed causation. The defendant in this case was Publix. The defendant acknowledged that there was chocolate syrup on floor where the plaintiff slipped and fell, but contended that it "couldn't have been there that long". 59, CN: Plaintiff 15%; Defendant 85% MVA Intersection Collison Plaintiff slipped on "greasy" substance while walking into a bathroom. The plaintiff had photo of depicting a "cloudy" substance, but could have been light refraction. Judgment reduced to 59,700 got CN and PIP setoff. The defendant driver passed prior to trial due to unrelated causes. The defendant's orthopedist claimed that the plaintiff's MRI results were normal and surgery was unnecessary. The defense also argued that the plaintiff could have avoided the accident. Plaintiff slipped on an unknown clear substance. He underwent 3 unsuccessful arthroscopic surgeries, and a future total knee replacement was recommended. The defense claimed that there was no way on knowing if knee issues were caused by fall.

6 - Defense MVA Rear-End - Defense MVA Broadside Collision 16, Plaintiff Premises Liability Slip-and-Fall 160, Plaintiff Negligent Truck Loading Bed Liner Defendant admitted liability, but maintained crash caused by sudden, unexpected loss of consciousness. The defendant had a subsequent diagnosis of epilepsy. The case was previously tried and resulted in a mistrial. Plaintiff was employed by an independent security agency as a security guard at a school when he slipped while walking into the guard station from muddy conditions. The plaintiff claimed the building was unsafe, built without a permit, and should have been built on a concrete foundation instead of grass. The defendant (school) claimed that the building was up to code even without a permit and that he should have been aware of the conditions. The defendant in this case was the City of Miami Police Department. A police car sideswiped plaintiff, causing injury. Plaintiff slipped on broken bottle of Pine-Sol at the defendant Walmart store. Defendant failed to secure a bed liner in his pickup truck which flew out and struck plaintiff's windshield. This case was tried on liability only. The plaintiff claimed she fell on "dirty mashed potatoes". The defense stressed that there were "no independent witnesses" to the fall.

7 - Defense Premises Liability Trip-and-Fall Plaintiff slipped on watermelon juice. Her osteopath claimed a 20% permanent impairment rating. The plaintiff claimed that she was unable to return to work as a painting contractor resulting in 55,000 past lost wages. The defense claimed area had been inspected minutes prior to fall. Plaintiff tripped over parking bumper because it wasn't painted. The bumps were similar in color to asphalt. The defense claimed she should have been watching where she was going. The case in currently on appeal. Plaintiff slipped on a stud gun left by the defendant electrical contractor at a hospital. The plaintiff claimed that he experienced a twisting of his body, but no actual fall to the floor. The defendant claimed it was not in the area for a month prior to fall. - Defense MVA Rear-End The defendant admitted liability. The jury found defendant not liable for damages. - Defense Premises Liability Dangerous Dance Floor Plaintiff fell from elevated dance floor approximately 3-4 ft. The defendant maintained that the plaintiff had been drinking and not watching out. The edge of dance floor was open.

8 5, Plaintiff Jones Act Action Slip-and-Fall - Defense Gov't Liability Trip-and-Fall 8, CN: Plaintiff 45%, Defendant 55% Premises Liability Slip-and-Fall This case was filed under Jones Act, 46 USC Section 688: dangerous slippery condition on kitchen floor causing accident; the accident caused him to leave his position on board. The defense claimed it had employees who solely inspected the floors for cleanliness, and that the departure from position not due to accident. The case is on appeal. Plaintiff claimed school board negligence based on failure to maintain a parking lot because he tripped on crushed asphalt (with photos). The defendant claimed he should have been watching where he was going. Plaintiff alleged that he fell on a banana peel in mall parking lot. He was treated by paramedics at the scene. The defendants claimed they didn't know of the condition, so they could not correct it prior to fall. The defendant in this case was Wal-Mart. The plaintiff slipped on water and argued a large number of prior slip-and-falls in the defendant's store and that the store failed to institute policies and procedures that make the store safe. The defendant argued policies were already in place for safety. Plaintiff alleged that she fell on an accumulation of water outside the exit doors of defendant's (Winn-Dixie) supermarket. The defendant claimed no notice/no opportunity to correct.

9 85, CN: Plaintiff 40%; Defendant 60% Premises Liability Slip-and-Fall - Defense Premises Liability 6, Bleacher Maintenance CN: Plaintiff 50%; Defendant 50% Premises Liability Slip-and-Fall 14, Plaintiff Premises Liability Slip-and-Fall - Defense Premises Liability Forklift Plaintiff slipped and fell on water near a supermarket ice machine. The defense claimed there was a caution sign. The plaintiff introduced photos of scene and denied any warning cone/sign. Plaintiff claimed a bleacher endcap broke off while stepping onto it, causing him to twist and injure his knee. The defendant asserted that maintenance of the bleachers exceed prevailing standards. Plaintiff slipped on wet floor in a convenience store and claimed that there was no warning sign. The defendant claimed a warning sign was placed and plaintiff was comparatively negligent. An employee of the defendant grocery store (Winn-Dixie) struck the plaintiff with a shopping cart. Employee of the defendant failed to clear forklift forks which caught a table and caused it to roll onto the plaintiff's feet. The defendant in this case was Publix. The plaintiff claimed negligence by Publix from them allowing water to accumulate at the store entrance on a rainy day. The defendant in this case was Publix. The plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell due to water on the floor and a clean-out drain cover. The defendant claimed drain cover was up to code and that floor was dry. The case was tried on liability only.

10 145, Settlement (pre-suit) Premises Liability Slip-and-Fall 106, Plaintiff MVA Loss of Control 553, CN: Plaintiff 28%; Defendant 72% Premises Liability Slip-and-Fall - Defense Premises Liability Trip-and-Fall 7, Settlement Premises Liability Trip-and-Fall 165, Plaintiff MVA Car/Person 156, CN: Plaintiff 50%; Defendant 50% Premises Liability Trip-and-Fall 227, Plaintiff Assault & Battery Security 50, Plaintiff MVA Collision Plaintiff slipped on rain water that leaked onto the floor due to a hurricane. The defendant in this case was Hilton Hotels. Plaintiff was hit by the defendant's trailer and strapped-on forklift while making a left turn. The plaintiff alleged that the forklift wasn't properly secured to trailer. The defendant admitted liability. Plaintiff slipped down oily stairs on board the defendant's ship. The defendants claimed that there was no oil on stairs, and that the plaintiff was comparatively negligent. Plaintiff tripped and fell on a raised or uneven tile and water on the floor. Plaintiff tripped and fell on parking bumper that was in disrepair with insufficient lighting to illuminate the area at night. The plaintiff suffered both knees being torn. UM claim. The defendant in this case was State Farm Insurance. Plaintiff tripped on 2" x 6" plank on the floor. The defendant claimed the plank was an open and obvious condition. Plaintiff was allegedly attacked by bouncers at the defendant's club. The plaintiff claimed the defendant failed to protect him. This accident involved two dump trucks colliding. The plaintiff claimed the defendant made an improper left turn. The defendant claimed the plaintiff was speeding and ran a red light.

11 - Defense Premises Liability Trip-and-Fall 214, CN: Plaintiff 90%; Defendant 10% Premises Liability Slip-and-Fall 223, Plaintiff Premises Liability Falling Bottle 55, Settlement Premises Liability Slip-and-Fall 154, Plaintiff MVA Exiting Driveway - Defense Premises Liability Trip-and-Fall Plaintiff claimed slip-and-fall resulting from an improperly secured toilet seat. The defendant claimed the plaintiff fell from seat because she was standing on it and it was properly secured. Plaintiff tripped over a floor stripper. The defendant claimed there was no floor stripper. This case was tried on liability only. Plaintiff slipped in a mixture of water and fat in the meat department of the defendant grocery store (Winn-Dixie). The defendant claimed it was "plaintiff's job to find dangerous conditions in the store". A plastic bottle of dishwasher detergent fell from a top shelf. The plaintiff twisted her left knee to avoid being hit by the bottle and was injured. Plaintiff fell on newly mopped floor and claimed no warning signs posted. The defendant in this case was Winn-Dixie. Plaintiff slipped and fell on chocolate syrup. The defendant in this case was Publix. Liability was not admitted in this case. The defendant collided with the plaintiff's vehicle while pulling out of driveway. The defendant claimed the plaintiff was speeding and could have stopped. Plaintiff fell from a change in ground height. The defendant claimed all curbs and heights were up to code and that plaintiff should have kept a look out.

12 8, , CN: Plaintiff 80%; Defendant 20% Premises Liability Slip-and-Fall CN: Plaintiff 50%; Defendant 50% Premises Liability Trip-and-Fall Plaintiff claimed that there were no "wet floor" signs when she slipped and fell on a wet substance on the floor. The defendant in this case was K-Mart. The plaintiff tripped and fell over a barbeque grill box that was protruding into the aisle. The defendant claimed no protrusion. 1,600, CN: Plaintiff 10%; Defendant 90% Premises Liability Slip-and-Fall Plaintiff slipped in automotive oil puddle while exiting his vehicle and will need a total knee replacement in future. 50,000 was awarded to the plaintiff's wife for loss of consortium. Plaintiff slipped on wheelchair ramp that was slippery and contended that defendant failed to properly maintain the premises. The defendant denied notice of condition and contended plaintiff did not keep proper lookout. - Defense 19, Plaintiff MVA Supermarket Negligence Shopping Carts Intersection Collison Plaintiff alleged that a row of 12 shopping carts hit him in the knee while they were being pushed by defendant's (Winn-Dixie) employee. Pushing 12 carts against company policy and totaled over 600 lbs. The defendant argued that the knee condition was likely longstanding and pre-dated incident. Plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle which collided with the defendant's produce truck. The defendant admitted negligence and case tried on damages/causation only.

13 133, CN: Plaintiff 70%; Defendant 30% Premises Liability Slip-and-Fall The defendant in this case was K-Mart. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was negligent in allowing water to build up near a water fountain, causing her fall. The defendant admitted water on the floor but said it was less water than plaintiff claimed. - Defense Premises Liability Trip-and-Fall - Defense MVA Multi-Car 36, Plaintiff MVA Improper Lane Change A mail carrier (plaintiff) tripped and fell down defendant's stairs due to untrimmed hedges. The plaintiff claimed she had written a letter to defendant asking for hedges to be trimmed several weeks prior. The defendant claimed plaintiff walked up and down the stairs daily and was familiar w/ the condition and shrubbery does not make for a hazard. This case involved a rear-end, 3-car collision. The defendant, the3rd vehicle in the accident, claimed he could not avoid hitting the 2nd vehicle, which hit the back of the plaintiff's vehicle. Plaintiff claimed an undercover police officer made a negligent lane change and struck her vehicle. The defendant in this case was Costco. The plaintiff alleged animal blood that had dripped on the floor near the meat counter caused her fall. The plaintiff claimed she did not see blood until after the fall and a witness (friend) also saw the blood. The defendant also saw the blood. The defendant claimed it could not have predicted how long blood had been on the floor.

14 173, , CN: Plaintiff 30%; Defendant 70% Jones Act Action Slip-and-Fall CN: Plaintiff 90%; Defendant 10% Premises Liability Slip-and-Fall The defendant in this case was Norwegian Cruise Lines. The plaintiff claimed that she fell from slipping on a water puddle that wasn't marked. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff should have kept better lookout. Judgment reduced to 21,400 for CN. The plaintiff was a security guard at Winn-Dixie (defendant) who slipped on a wet floor in the meat room. The defendant argued that, as a security guard, part of plaintiff's job was to look for hazards like wet floors. Judgment reduced to 275,500 for CN. The plaintiff claimed that he was involved in a traditional rear-end. The defendant claimed the 290, CN: Plaintiff 5%; Defendant 95% MVA Rear-End plaintiff cut from center lane to right lane in front of defendant's vehicle. 4, Plaintiff MVA Rear-End Defendant admitted liability. - Defense Premises Liability Trip-and-Fall The defendant in this case was Costco. The plaintiff allegedly tripped over an empty pallet left on the floor. The defendant claimed the pallet was open and obvious and that the pallet was not empty. 7, Plaintiff MVA Collision The defendant admitted liability. 28, Plaintiff MVA Intersection Collison Minor plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle. The defendant admitted liability, but disputed nature and extent of injuries.

15 - Defense Gov't Liability Trip-and-Fall 83, Plaintiff Gov't Liability Trip-and-Fall - Defense Gov't Liability Trip-and-Fall 96, Plaintiff MVA 66, Improper Lane Change Plaintiff boarded a train at Metro Rail and tripped over a downed fence. The defendants claimed the fence was an open and obvious condition and that there was a safe path around the fence. Plaintiff claimed Defendant (State of FL Department of Corrections) placed a chair in a doorway against policy, causing her to trip, she did not actually fall. The defendant claimed it acted reasonably by implementing policies against this and could not establish that a DoC guard put the chair in the doorway. Plaintiff slipped on a detergent spill. The defendant claimed they tried to get there as fast as possible but plaintiff had already slipped. Plaintiff claimed that the City of Miami failed to maintain a paved sidewalk, where she tripped due to missing pavers. A witness said that sidewalk was in disrepair for at least 6 months. The defendant denied notice and found no previous complaints. Plaintiff collided with defendants vehicle because it was partially in the turn lane. The defendant contested liability, claiming that the Plaintiff was speeding and she was completely in the turn lane.