Pearson Case

Pearson v. “Anonymous, Corp., et al.”, Bristol Superior Court

Type of Action: Trip and Fall

Injuries alleged: Injuries to left leg and knee including meniscal tears, subluxation of patella, and required arthroscopic surgery exacerbating pre-existing osteoarthritis.

Result: $180,000 Settlement

Date: December 17, 2004

Case Summary:

Plaintiff, a fifty one year old postal clerk was injured when he tripped over uneven pavement in the parking lot of the apartment complex where he lived. The defendants were the entity which owned the apartment complex and the corporation which managed the property and was responsible for maintaining it. As a result of tripping on the uneven pavement, the plaintiff fell forward and his left foot was caught in the slats of a drain grate. Because his knee was held fast as his body turned, he badly injured his left knee and hamstring. Discovery revealed that the uneven, cracked, pavement was a periodic condition occurring every Spring as the result of frost heaves caused by lack of proper drainage in the parking lot. Although in previous years the defendants had used temporary patches on the resulting potholes, they did not do this between the preceding winter and the date of plaintiff’s accident as the parking lot was scheduled for future drainage improvements and re-surfacing. At his deposition, defendants’ maintenance supervisor admitted that the defendants knew that the grate was in a state of disrepair and had even placed an orange construction barrel over it to alert pedestrians. When the barrel was removed, prior to plaintiff’s accident, no other steps were taken to repair the grate or at least make it more noticeable.

The defendants took the position that the accident was plaintiff’s fault. Defendants intended to rely on plaintiff’s deposition testimony that he was well aware of the condition of the parking lot and of the grate prior to his accident. Moreover, one of defendants’ employees was prepared to testify that he saw plaintiff immediately after the accident and that plaintiff did not fall near the grate but instead pointed out a spot a number of feet away.

In response, plaintiff was prepared to offer testimony from a human factors expert that both the parking lot surface and the grate violated the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and ASTM standards and that reliance on a pedestrian’s previous familiarity with the general condition of the parking lot or the grate was not an adequate means of injury prevention. Plaintiff was also prepared to offer testimony from a former resident of the apartment complex that plaintiff was lying near the grate immediately after the accident.

The case settled after an extensive mediation session conducted approximately one month prior to the scheduled trial date.