One of the more noteworthy awards in a slip-and-fall case is the jury award of December 18, 2012, to Barbara Ferren. In that case, Ms. Ferren parked her car along the side of the Defendants' property to visit her daughter. When returning to her car and crossing the street, she tripped over a significantly raised sidewalk, which made her body propel forward. To avoid falling on her face, she extended her arms forward when landing on the ground. As a result, Plaintiff suffered humeral neck fracture.
Ms. Ferren's lawyers argued that the sidewalk was raised by the tree root underneath it, and that the owners of the property had the duty to inspect and maintain the same property and repair, that they knew that it was dangerous condition but failed to repair it. The Defendants of course denied any liability.
Two facts make this case particularly interesting. First, the Plaintiff in that case was claims adjuster herself. Thus, she knew how insurance companies operate when it comes to settling/fighting injury claims. Secondly, and somewhat unusually, despite the serious objective injury and the likely need for surgery confirmed by the plaintiff's doctor, the Defendants didn't offer any amount to settle the claim prior to trial. This goes to show that although insurance companies are quite experienced in evaluating claims and their potential exposure to liability, they can be completely off and out of touch with a jury's view of the case.
Ms. Ferren's lawyers argued that the sidewalk was raised by the tree root underneath it, and that the owners of the property had the duty to inspect and maintain the same property and repair, that they knew that it was dangerous condition but failed to repair it. The Defendants of course denied any liability.
Two facts make this case particularly interesting. First, the Plaintiff in that case was claims adjuster herself. Thus, she knew how insurance companies operate when it comes to settling/fighting injury claims. Secondly, and somewhat unusually, despite the serious objective injury and the likely need for surgery confirmed by the plaintiff's doctor, the Defendants didn't offer any amount to settle the claim prior to trial. This goes to show that although insurance companies are quite experienced in evaluating claims and their potential exposure to liability, they can be completely off and out of touch with a jury's view of the case.
RSS Feed
