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
Negligence

Charlotte Bell v. Waban, Inc.

Published: Jul. 26, 1997 | Result Date: Mar. 18, 1997 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: BC138780 Verdict –  $56,600

Judge

Ronald E. Cappai

Court

L.A. Superior Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

William A. Brown Jr.

Steven H. Unger


Defendant

David M. Karen


Experts

Plaintiff

Edwin Gromis
(medical)

Defendant

Kenneth A. Solomon
(technical)

Richard C. Rosenberg M.D.
(medical)

Facts

On Nov. 16, 1994, plaintiff Charlotte Bell, a 39-year-old unemployed woman, was shopping in defendant Waban Inc.'s Homebase store. She was walking down an aisle when a large carpet roll fell on her. The plaintiff brought this action against the defendant based on premises liability and negligence theories of recovery.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff made a settlement demand for $95,000. The defendant made a settlement offer of $50,000, increased to $65,000 (per the plaintiff) or $75,000 (per the defendant).

Specials in Evidence

$10,770 $20,000

Injuries

The plaintiff claimed she suffered left shoulder impingement syndrome, requiring future surgery to repair her rotator cuff.

Other Information

The verdict was reached approximately one year and three months after the case was filed. An arbitration was held on October 16, 1996 before Martin Kanter, resulting in an award of $37,750. The plaintiff requested a trial de novo. A mediation was held on Feb. 28, 1997 before Judge James N. Reaves of JAMS/Endispute. It did not resolve the matter. Plaintiff's attorney Steven Unger commented that Judge Cappai runs a strict courtroom and insists on a strict line-up of witnesses. "He called us three days before trial and told us to come in to start trial early. Neither side was prepared to do so. The defendant had a scheduling problem with an expert and the judge allowed no latitude, so the defendant made its objection and then rested." Per defense counsel, the scheduled five-to-seven day trial lasted three days. "Judge Cappai ordered the defense to rest over objection at 3:45 p.m. on Friday, despite the fact that a designated expert was scheduled to testify on Monday at 8:30 a.m. The court ordered argument to begin at 4 p.m. on Friday and instructed the jury the same evening at 6 p.m.."

Deliberation

2 days

Poll

10-2

Length

3 days


#124061

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

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