Facts

Plaintiff Hagop Halladjian is a professional painter/handyman. He purchased a Husky 8-foot aluminum ladder from Home Depot. The ladder is imported by Tricam Industries Inc. As plaintiff was sanding a wall, he felt the ladder "give way" beneath him and he fell off of the ladder. A nearby eyewitness says he heard a loud pop, then saw the ladder start to move. This was only the second time the ladder was ever used. It was set up on a flat, marble floor. Damage to the ladder was limited to creasing on the left front rail and a failed rivet on the right spreader bar. Plaintiff filed suit against Home Depot and Tricam for products liability.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended that the ladder was defectively manufactured; the rivet on the right spreader bar was too short and unable to hold the intended loads; and, the rivet hole had burrs, which are not allowed according to the ladder design. Plaintiff contended that, when he was using the ladder, the forces caused the rivet to fail, which caused sudden instability in the ladder, causing the plaintiff to react by jumping off the ladder. Plaintiff claimed both the broken rivet and the bending of the front left rail are consistent with this scenario.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendants contended that the ladder was made properly and did not have a manufacture defect. The fall occurred because plaintiff was on the 7th step of the ladder, lost balance and fell. The damage to the ladder was done as a result of plaintiff falling on it. Defendants claimed that the rivet did not fail, but that it broke when plaintiff impacted in the fall.

Settlement Discussions

After the liability phase of trial, plaintiff demanded $135,000. Defendants offered $100,000.

Specials in Evidence

$50,000

Injuries

Plaintiff suffered torn meniscus of left knee with surgery. He had similar injury to same knee in 1980s. He also suffered lower back pain due to 3 to 4 mm bulge of L4-5. Plaintiff was treated with physical therapy and had one unsuccessful epidural injection and is not interested in surgery.

Result

The returned a verdict for plaintiff, finding his damages worth $380,000. The jury also found plaintiff 43 percent liable, resulting a net judgment of $216,600.

Other Information

Defendants filed a Motion for Judgment As A Matter of Law and for New Trial on July 19, 2010 arguing that plaintiff's expert used no engineering tests or methodology to support his opinions and that the court should not have admitted Givon's testimony. FILING DATE: April 15, 2009.

Deliberation

four hours

Poll

8-0

Length

two days