Colette Crawford v. The Chateau Marmont Hotel
Published: Nov. 22, 2008 | Result Date: Oct. 30, 2008 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: SC095480 Verdict – Defense
Court
L.A. Superior Beverly Hills
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Experts
Plaintiff
Mark Burns
(technical)
Facts
Plaintiff Crawford, age 40, a resident of New York, was a guest at the Chateau Marmont Hotel, having checked in on Dec. 1, 2005, the day prior to her accident. Crawford was in California for the purpose of installing a new software program onto the firm's computers in their Los Angeles office. On Dec. 2, 2005 at about 10:30 p.m., Crawford slipped/tripped and fell on an Oriental rug in the main lobby of the hotel.
Contentions
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff alleged that the Oriental rug was dangerous as it was placed upon a Spanish tile floor and was too slippery; defendant failed to place an adequate non-skid pad underneath the rug or to fasten the outer edges of the Oriental rug with two-sided tape per industry custom in order to keep it from buckling or slipping.
Plaintiff further alleged that Château Marmont did not properly inspect or check for wear of the underlay. Château Marmont had disposed of the underlay at the time of the accident and thus was unavailable for inspection by plaintiff's safety engineer. Plaintiff had testified that she stepped onto the rug and it slid and bunched causing her to trip and fall. Plaintiff also contended that the lighting was 1/10 for safe nighttime lighting conditions in the lobby area, and this low lighting contributed to her trip and fall.
DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant contended that the Oriental rug was not dangerous as the hotel staff did install the recommended carpet pad underneath the rug to prevent sliding. The rug was not dangerous as it had been installed four years prior to the accident and was inspected and cleaned daily. It was never a problem before the plaintiff's accident.
Settlement Discussions
According to plaintiff's counsel, defendant's only offer was $10,000. Plaintiff was never informed that defendant increased its offer to $17,500 just prior to trial. Plaintiff's counsel further contends that defendant would not mediate this matter prior to trial. According to defense counsel, the plaintiff's final demand prior to trial was $192,727. The defendant's final offer prior to trial was $17,500.
Specials in Evidence
$32,030.
Injuries
The plaintiff fractured her right distal radius (right wrist). She returned home to New York wherein she underwent surgery and had an open reduction internal fixation to repair her wrist.
Result
Defense verdict.
Other Information
FILING DATE: Oct. 1, 2007.
Deliberation
one hour
Poll
12-0 (negligence)
Length
four days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390