This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Personal Injury
Premises Liability
Trip and Fall

Tisha Vogt v. Zack Stockwell, James Mechem Contruction Company and DNA Construction Company

Published: Jul. 28, 2007 | Result Date: Apr. 18, 2007 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: CV 153220 Verdict –  Defense

Court

Santa Cruz Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Robert H. Bohn JR.


Defendant

Dean M. Robinson

Raymond M. Coates


Experts

Plaintiff

Glenn MacWhonten
(medical)

Paul Ware
(medical)

Nicholas Abidi
(medical)

G. Michael Graham
(technical)

Thaddeus J. Whalen Jr.
(technical)

Randall B. Aiman-Smith
(Aiman-Smith & Marcy PC) (technical)

Defendant

George McLaughlin
(technical)

Stephen Plager
(medical)

John Christianson
(medical)

Lawrence J. Deneen J.D.
(technical)

Paul J. Mills
(medical)

Steven D. Feinberg
(medical)

Facts

Plaintiff, Tisha Vogt, returned home one night when her dog bolted out of her car and ran into a construction lot adjacent to her home. She did not know she was about to fall into a hole as she gave chase to the dog onto the lot. The plaintiff sued various parties including James Mechem Construction Co. for negligent maintenance of the premises.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff argued there was insufficient caution tape to notify pedestrians of a dangerous condition on the lot and that there was poor lighting, as she could not see where she was going.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant argued the condition at the site was open and obvious and that the contractors had strategically placed yellow caution tape to warn of heightened danger. The defendant further presented evidence that plaintiff was injured because she was intoxicated, as evidenced by testimony that she arrived at the hospital in a drunken state. The plaintiff countered that she was not drunk before the accident, and only had a drink before she went to the hospital. Further, the plaintiff countered that any tape strategically placed at the site, was posted after her accident.

Specials in Evidence

The plaintiff sought to recover $100,000 in past and future medical bills. The plaintiff also sought $900,000 in past and future wage losses.

Damages

The plaintiff sought unspecified damages for past and future pain and suffering.

Injuries

The plaintiff was treated in the emergency room, where she was diagnosed with a sprained ankle, which she argued developed into complex regional pain syndrome.

Result

The jury found defendants were not liable for negligent maintenance of the construction site and that the dangerous condition was open and obvious.

Deliberation

six hours

Poll

9-3

Length

eight days


#101239

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390