X hits on this document

PDF document

$19,550,157 VERDICT – Product Liability – Asbestos Expsoure – Carpenter contracts ... - page 22 / 32

81 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

22 / 32

22

VERDICTS BY CATEGORY

claims should be accepted. The defendant con- tended that the fact that there were no prior difficul- ties in the approximate one-month period since she moved in lent significant support for her position, and that she lacked notice of any dangerous defect.

The plaintiff related that after raising the door a sec- ond time, she placed a long stick on the side to keep the door propped open and was able to drive away. The defendant contended that the only stick visible on the plaintiff’s photographs taken shortly after the incident was a broom stick that was too short to use to prop the door open sufficiently high to enable the plaintiff to back out.

however, that before the fusion was performed, the plaintiff was involved in an MVA that caused cervical herniations that rendered her a paraplegic.

This case was first tried in 1994, but was mistried by the court just before going to the jury. The plaintiff ob- tained new attorneys who took it to the second trial. $50,000 had been offered in 1994 and was still on the table up to jury selection in second trial. The de- mand was for the $300,000 policy.

The jury found for the defendant.

REFERENCE

The plaintiff contended that she suffered lumbar herniations requiring a discectomy. The plaintiff main- tained that because the surgery was inadequate, she scheduled fusion surgery. The evidence reflected,

Plaintiff’s orthopedic surgeon expert: James Egnatchik, MD from Buffalo, NY.

Lograsso vs. Myer. Index no. 010534/01; Judge Deborah A. Chimes, 05-13-11.

Attorney for defendant: Laurence Behr of Barth Sullivan & Behr in Buffalo, NY.

TRANSIT AUTHORITY LIABILITY

DEFENDANT’S VERDICT

Transit Authority Liability – Plaintiff subway patron allegedly trips and falls on a broken area of subway station floor – Comminuted fracture of the left knee – Semi Patellectomy.

Kings County, NY

testified that the plaintiff stated she fell in the train due to a wet condition on the floor. The plaintiff de- nied this testimony was accurate, especially in view of the language difficulties. The plaintiff also denied talking to the police about how the accident occurred.

The plaintiff, who was in the station waiting for a train, contended that after the train came into the station, and as she walking to the train to board, she fell on a defect on the platform, causing her to fall partly into the train door. The plaintiff, who testified through a Russian interpreter, related that after the fall, other passengers brought her into the train. The plaintiff contended that she was later helped off the train and called the police and an ambulance for help.

The plaintiff suffered a comminuted fracture of the left patella. The plaintiff contended that she required a semi patellectomy, or excision of the half of the dis- tal pole of the patella. The plaintiff maintained that she will permanently suffer extensive pain and restric- tion and need a cane to walk.

The jury found for the defendant.

REFERENCE

The plaintiff introduced photographs that she claimed were the scene of the occurrence, showing a major defect in the area of the platform near the platform’s edge. The defendant denied that the plaintiff tripped as a result of a defect. The evidence disclosed that it was raining at the time of the inci- dent. The defendant presented a police officer who

Kleyman vs. New York City Transit Authority. Index no. 33678/08; Judge Mark I. Partnow.

Attorney for defendant: Mark S. Yagerman of Smith Mazure Director Wilkins Young & Yagerman, PC in New York, NY.

Volume 28, Issue 9, September 2011

Subscribe Now

Document info
Document views81
Page views81
Page last viewedThu Dec 08 23:21:37 UTC 2016
Pages32
Paragraphs811
Words20297

Comments