Tort/Personal Injury

We represented a general contractor who was sued by a plaintiff seeking damages for injuries sustained while working on a construction project. The general contractor had entered into a contract with a subcontractor to provide steel for the construction project. The subcontractor then contracted with a sub-subcontractor to perform the steel erection work. The subcontractor and the sub-subcontractor were parties to an Annual Subcontract Agreement which governed all work performed under purchase orders issued during a stated time period, which encompassed the date of the accident. This contract included an indemnity provision which required the sub-subcontractor to indemnify and hold harmless certain individuals, including general contractors, from any and all claims, damages, losses and expenses. The general contractor who had been sued did not directly contract with the sub-subcontractor for steel erection services on the project. Based on the language of the contract between the subcontractor and the sub-subcontractor, however, we brought a third-party complaint against the sub-subcontractor seeking contribution and indemnification for the plaintiff’s injuries. The sub-subcontractor filed a Motion for Summary Judgment contending that there was no valid and enforceable indemnification agreement between it and the general contractor. The court found that the general contractor was an intended third-party beneficiary of the Annual Subcontract Agreement and denied the sub-subcontractor’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Based upon the court’s decision and the facts of the case, the insurer for the sub-subcontractor agreed to assume the defense of the general contractor.

The plaintiff, 67 years old at the time, claimed that she tripped and fell because of an uneven surface between a cracked and broken cement sidewalk and an asphalt parking lot. She was diagnosed with a complete full-thickness tear of the right rotator cuff, which required surgical repair. Following surgery, the plaintiff suffered from cardiac complications and blood clots and was hospitalized for nine days. The plaintiff was followed by the orthopedic surgeon and underwent physical therapy for approximately nine months post accident.

Following a District Court bench trial, the judge awarded the plaintiff $245,000 plus interest and costs. The defendant appealed to the Superior Court, based on its view that the evidence did not support the judge’s finding as to negligence and that the amount of the judgment was inflated.

At the time of the Superior Court trial, the District Court judgment with interest then amounted to almost $380,000.

In Superior Court the plaintiff argued that the defendants were negligent in their maintenance of the exterior sidewalk and parking area; she introduced photographs which depicted a chipped and broken edge to the sidewalk. She further alleged the defendants were negligent in failing to warn of the height differential. Lastly, the plaintiff argued that the District Court decision was prima facie evidence as to both negligence and the value of the plaintiff’s injuries and should be affirmed.

We argued that the condition of the sidewalk and the height differential were open and obvious conditions, of which the defendant had no duty to warn, and that the plaintiff was not watching were she was going. We introduced medical records documenting that the plaintiff suffered prior vision problems and issues with dizziness. Further, the defense argued that the District Court decision was incorrect as to negligence and inflated in the amount awarded. The jury deliberated for approximately ninety minutes and returned with a defense verdict.

The 19-year old plaintiff claimed he sustained a broken nose and facial injuries while jumping on a backyard trampoline owned by the defendants. He contended that the defendants did not properly maintain the trampoline, provide adequate lighting, or supervise the plaintiff.

The defendants asserted that the trampoline was an open and obvious condition and that plaintiff was aware of the danger in using it. They further maintained that plaintiff was repeatedly vaulting himself off the trampoline to the ground and that he had consumed alcoholic beverages, as he had admitted in the deposition. The plaintiff’s liability expert testified that the defendants failed to properly maintain the trampoline insofar as it was stored outdoors, resulting in its poor condition. He also testified that the defendants failed to prevent access to the trampoline and failed to supervise the plaintiff.

At trial we discredited the plaintiff’s expert on cross-examination. The jury returned with a verdict in favor of the defendants.

Plaintiff and defendant were both operating boats on a lake. The plaintiff alleged that, following a verbal altercation with the defendant, the defendant deliberately caused a large wake that rocked the plaintiff’s boat and caused him to fall. The plaintiff claimed both physical and psychological injuries, including mid- to lower back strain, bulging disc at mid-back, neck and head injuries, dizziness, depression and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. He also claimed significant lost profits. The defendant had admitted to sufficient facts at the related criminal hearing.

At trial we argued that plaintiff’s injuries were pre-existing and not causally related to the subject accident. We further highlighted the plaintiff’s numerous inconsistent statements regarding the impact of the boats and questioned the plaintiff about pending legal actions he had recently filed against several governmental entities in which he made similar claims for damages. Lastly, we argued that the evidence did not support plaintiff’s claim for lost profits. The jury returned with a verdict in favor of the defendant.

The plaintiff was working in her cubicle when, in an attempt to get the attention of the plaintiff in order to greet her, the defendant touched the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that she was startled and fell to the floor, injuring her neck and back. She filed a worker’s compensation claim prior to the lawsuit.

Plaintiff’s counsel argued that the employee exclusivity provision did not apply in the case because the defendant’s conduct constituted an intentional act, the act itself violated the employer’s handbook, and the co-employee was not acting in the course of her employment. We filed a motion to preclude admission of the handbook on the grounds that the policies and provisions outlined in the handbook were not legally binding in a court of law. Further, the policy provisions upon which the plaintiff was relying pertained to sexual harassment and not to the action alleged here -- battery. The judge granted the motion, but did not let the defendant raise exclusivity issues during trial.

The plaintiff also had a significant history of prior and subsequent ailments and injuries. She also testified that she could no longer work due to the severity of her injuries, but we showed that she had worked for several years after the incident.

Despite a last-minute attempt by plaintiff’s counsel to negotiate settlement during jury deliberations, the jury came back before any such settlement could be reached with a finding in favor of the defendant.

This action was brought by the estate of a minor plaintiff who died in a fire when a candle was left burning in her tent overnight. The family filed suit against the property owner, the tent manufacturer, the candle manufacturer, the candle distributor, the tent distributor, as well as numerous additional defendants.

The emotional value of this case is significant as it involves the traumatic loss of life of a young child. After the victim was pulled from the fire, her father wrapped her in a blanket and rushed her to a hospital. The severely burned victim died several hours later. The employees of the property owner faced significant exposure in this matter. We filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the theory that the defendant was a charitable organization entitled to a $20,000 cap on liability. The motion was allowed and the case settled for $212,500, of which the defendant paid only $20,000.