A 47-year-old woman suffered serious injuries after slipping on a large puddle in the parking garage area of her apartment complex in Sherman Oaks, leading to $239,000 in medical expenses. A $950,000 settlement was secured for her after it was found that the building was not maintained in a reasonably safe condition.
Plaintiff, a 47 year old female, was a tenant of Defendant’s apartment complex, located in Sherman Oaks, CA. While walking out of the elevators leading to the underground parking garage, Plaintiff slipped and fell on a large puddle of water that led from the elevators to the parking garage. Plaintiff slipped and fell onto the hard ground, landing on her left knee and bilateral hand.
California property owners have an ordinary duty of care to ensure that their property is kept in a reasonably safe condition. If there are any hazards that could potentially lead to a slip-and-fall accident, they are obligated to warn visitors and guests of the dangers. A special relationship exists between landlords and their “invitees” or those individuals with special permission from the landlord to enter the premises. Issacs v. Huntington Hosp. (1985) 38 C3d 112, 123, 211. (A classic example of an invitee is a tenant on the premises of a residential building such as Plaintiff’s presence at Defendant’s apartment complex.)
As a result of her fall, Plaintiff suffered injuries to her left knee, right hand, right wrist, right shoulder, neck, upper back, middle back and lower back. Plaintiff’s injuries were significant enough to incur $239,000 in medical expenses. Plaintiff required a left knee arthroscopic surgery, to where she now has ongoing sporadic left knee pain, for which she will require intermittent chiropractic and physical therapy treatment in the future. As a result of her injuries, causing her to be less mobile, Plaintiff gained over 60 lbs, and as a result also underwent an intragastric orbera balloon placement surgery for weight loss.
Defendant disputed liability and Plaintiff’s claims for injuries and damages. Defendant also disputed the reasonableness and necessity of Plaintiff’s medical treatment. However, through lengthy discovery and depositions, it was determined that the maintenance company hired by Defendant did not do a thorough job in maintaining Defendant’s building in a reasonably safe condition, and they did not place any warning signs near the hazard that exited. Furthermore, through the testimony of expert doctors, it was determined that Plaintiff’s injuries and treatment were reasonable and necessary, considering the severity of her fall. Messrs. Khakshooy and Agarwal were able to recover $950,000 for Plaintiff.
Speak with a lawyer today! Begin your free consultation.
