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
Failure to Warn

Louis Acosta v. MAS Realty, LLC et al.

Published: Sep. 24, 2021 | Result Date: Aug. 6, 2021 | Filing Date: Aug. 8, 2018 |

Case number: BC717512 Verdict –  $12,622,238

Judge

Mark V. Mooney Jr.

Court

Los Angeles County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Daniel K. Kramer
(Kramer Trial Lawyers APC)

Teresa A. Johnson
(Kramer Trial Lawyers APC)


Defendant

A. Harry Safarian
(The Safarian Firm APC)


Facts

Defendant MAS Realty was the owner of Arlington Plaza, a strip mall in Riverside. MAS had hired defendant Athena Management, Inc. to manage the property.
In August 2014, defendants asked The Roof Depot, Inc. to inspect all the rooftops at Arlington Plaza. In a report sent to Athena on Sept. 9, 2014, Roof Depot noted that the hatch door leading to the rooftop of one of the buildings called "Pad A" was broken, and the spring was missing, making the door "heavy and dangerous to operate". Roof Depot recommended repairing the entire hatch door for $3,150. Athena acknowledged the email, and included the hatch door repair for the December 2015 budget. However, the door was not repaired in December 2015 and the repairs were rescheduled for December 2016.

Plaintiff Louis Acosta was a lighting technician assigned to check the exterior lights of Arlington Plaza. On Aug. 10, 2016, plaintiff needed to access the rooftop of Pad A in order to check the photocells on the roof. Plaintiff proceeded to climb the ladder to the roof, push the hatch door open, and maneuver the locking lever into position. However, while he was in the process of exiting the hatch door, his toolbelt caught on the hatch door's locking lever, causing the door to slam onto his back. Plaintiff was able to re-open the hatch door and upon examination realized that the door was missing a spring assist, so that the door was able to slam down as opposed to gently dropping. Plaintiff continued to work for a few hours, before having to go to the doctor as the pain and numbness continued in his extremities and back.

This case proceeded under an exception to the Privette Doctrine based on the case Kinsman v. Unocal Corp. Under this exception, the owner/controller of a premises may be held liable for injuries to an independent contractor's employee if the owner/controller knew or reasonably should have known of a concealed dangerous condition on the property; the independent contractor could not have known or reasonably could not have known about the condition; the owner/controller failed to warn the independent contractor of the condition; the employee was harmed; and the conduct of the owner/controller was a substantial factor in causing the employee's harm.

Contentions

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants maintained throughout litigation that the hatch door was not dangerous, and that they did not know that the hatch was broken, despite the Sept. 9, 2014 email. Defendants also maintained that they were not responsible for the incident, and instead alleged that plaintiff, his employer, and The Roof Depot were at fault.

Defendants also pointed to a typed statement by plaintiff after the incident that stated he acknowledged the spring was broken as he lifted the hatch door up initially.
Defendants also argued that they did warn plaintiff and his employer of the dangerous condition, because of the presence of a handwritten note on the wall behind the ladder that read "Hatch broken! Watch fingers and head".

Injuries

Plaintiff underwent two spinal fusion surgeries and has a recommendation for a shoulder surgery. Due to his condition, Dr. Mobin has indicated plaintiff will need future surgeries at the adjacent levels in his spine. As a result of his injuries, plaintiff could not return to work in the same capacity, and ultimately stopped working completely in October 2016. Plaintiff also had to move back into his parents' home because he was unable to pay his rent. Defendants disputed the nature and extent of plaintiff's injuries. Defendants' billing expert cut down plaintiff's medical bills by two thirds, from approximately $606,000 to $200,000. In addition, defendants' vocational rehabilitation expert suggested plaintiff could return to work in a position that was better than the one he had left, and that he could make more money, thereby suffering from no future lost earnings.

Result

Verdict in favor of plaintiff for $12,622,238.75


#137617

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

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