Facts

On Aug. 11, 2008, plaintiff Brian Pascarelli, age 21, was working as a bartender for a hotel. While in the course and scope of his employment, he was walking in one of the hotel parking lots to retrieve an item from his car. It was nighttime and he tripped over a protruding valve that was sticking up several inches from the surface of the parking lot near where his car was parked.

The owner of the parking lot was also the owner of the hotel where plaintiff was employed. The hotel hired a separate security company, which had a security guard patrolling the parking lots. In addition, the hotel was a franchise. Defendants were the franchiser, the security company, and the owner of the parking lot.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended that the security company was negligent through their security guard in failing to communicate to the hotel management that a few weeks before the subject incident, the security guard witnessed someone else trip over the same valve.

Plaintiff claimed that the franchisor was negligent in that its inspectors would come approximately twice a year to this franchise to inspect the premises and these inspections also included inspections of the parking lots for safety.

The franchisor's inspectors testified that their inspections should have included inspections for safety and that a protruding valve protruding several inches from the surface of the parking lot constituted a dangerous condition. The franchisor had the ability to require the franchisee to make the dangerous condition safe otherwise they could lose their franchise.

Plaintiff alleged that the owner of the parking lot created a separate business for purposes of managing the hotel and therefore workers' compensation was not the exclusive remedy.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The franchisor contended that it had no duty because it did not substantially control the day operations of its franchisee. Their summary judgment motion was denied.

The security company claimed that they had no duty because they did not control the parking lot. Their summary judgment motion was denied.

The owner of the parking lot alleged that workers' compensation was an exclusive remedy because since he did not form a corporation and since a corporation did not own the hotel, that he therefore did not have a separate legal entity. However, due to his testimony that he formed a separate company to manage the hotel, his summary judgment motion was denied. Workers' compensation lien was approximately $90,000.

Injuries

As a result of the trip and fall, plaintiff sustained a herniated disc at L5-S1, which resulted in two surgeries.

Result

The case settled for $595,000 ($300,000 from security company; $250,000 from franchisor; $45,000 from property owner).

Other Information

Plaintiff purchased the workers' compensation lien for approximately $9,000 and the issue of credit remained open in the workers' compensation case. MEDIATOR: Robert Tessier.