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 (Non-Vehicular)
Fall
Negligence

Shawn Scott Bailey v. San Leandro Property Management; and Jard & Company

Published: Apr. 5, 1997 | Result Date: Nov. 25, 1996 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: H1805129 –  $1,250,000

Judge

William L. Dunbar

Court

Alameda Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Gilbert T. Graham


Defendant

Michael P. Akana


Experts

Plaintiff

Joseph M. Grant
(medical)

Melvin C. Fredlund
(technical)

Robert Holiday
(technical)

Defendant

Wes Daniels
(technical)

Facts

On Dec. 21, 1993, plaintiff Shawn Scott Bailey, a 35-year-old repairman, was injured when his foot went through a hole in the roof while working on property owned and managed by the defendants.The roof contained dry rot due to excessive moisture which had weakened the structure. The defendants allegedly received numerous reports from a roofing company indicating that the roof needed to be replaced. The plaintiff brought this action against the defendants based on a negligence and premises liability theories of recovery.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff made a C.C.P. º998 settlement demand for $500,000 lowered to $250,000 during trial. The defendants made a C.C.P. º998 offer of compromise for $50,000 that was withdrawn during trial.

Specials in Evidence

$15,000 $98,626 $435,000 - $541,000 $125,000

Injuries

The plaintiff alleged that he suffered fractured vertebrae in the lumbar region, requiring multiple surgeries. The plaintiff also claimed that he suffered permanent injury to his lower back and could only return to work with limitations.

Other Information

The defendants' motion for new trial was granted, on the grounds of insufficient evidence. The plaintiff has filed an appeal from the order granting new trial. A new trial has been scheduled for Aug. 29, 1997, if not reversed. The trial judge previously granted a mistrial at the defense request after two days of trial and a new jury was selected.The defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was denied. The defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was denied.

Deliberation

2 days

Poll

11-1

Length

9 days


#101482

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

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