Maria Dominguez v. Westfield Santa Anita Shoppingtown LLC, Nationwide Janitorial Services Inc.
Published: Jun. 23, 2017 |Case number: BC592749 Bench Decision – Nonsuit
Judge
Court
L.A. Superior Pasadena
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Gilbert Perez III
(Law Offices of Mauro Fiore Jr.)
Defendant
Timothy J. Lippert
(Demler, Armstrong & Rowland)
Experts
Plaintiff
Defendant
Facts
On Sept. 6, 2013, plaintiff Maria Dominguez, 41, slipped and fell on a yellow liquid in the common area of the Westfield Santa Anita Mall in front of the Walking Company store on the lower level. Plaintiff sued Westfield and Nationwide Janitorial Services Inc. for personal injuries.
Contentions
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended she suffered injuries as a result of the fall. Plaintiff asserted claims of premises liability and negligence against the defendants, contending the flooring was unsafe when wet.
According to plaintiff, nonsuit was granted due to a significant change in the subject flooring between the time of the incident and the time of plaintiff's expert's inspection of the premises. Plaintiff's expert conducted an inspection of the newly installed flooring only.
DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Electronic patrol log records showed that the incident location was inspected about 10 minutes prior to plaintiff's fall, and plaintiff's accident reconstruction expert did not have any criticisms of defendants' cleaning/inspection procedures. Instead, plaintiff's expert claimed that the mall's tile flooring was unsafe when wet, based on his slip resistance testing performed in February 2017. Prior to the close of plaintiff's case, the general manager of the mall testified that approximately 1.67 million visitors walked through the subject location in 2013 and there was only one other slip and fall in the area that year. The mall manager further testified that the tile was replaced in 2014 for reasons having nothing to do with safety. Defendants argued that the testing performed by plaintiff's expert (on the new tile) was irrelevant.
Plaintiff's medical expert testified that plaintiff was suffering from chronic pain syndrome and would benefit from a multidisciplinary pain management program costing $1,500 per day. However, on cross-examination plaintiff's medical expert admitted that her treatment was excessive and most of the injections she received were not medically indicated after the first injection made her symptoms worse.
Defendants then moved for a nonsuit on the grounds that plaintiff had failed to introduce any evidence of negligence on the part of defendants. The motion was granted and the jury was dismissed.
Settlement Discussions
Plaintiff demanded $235,000. Defendant made a CCP 998 offer of $40,000.
Damages
Plaintiff claimed $85,000 (all lien).
Injuries
Plaintiff claimed constant intractable lower back pain, which did not respond to extensive chiropractic treatment, physical therapy, and multiple epidural/facet block injections.
Result
Defendant's motion for judgment of nonsuit was granted.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390