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
Slip and Fall

Linda L. Tafoya v. Alice M. Collier

Published: Feb. 1, 1997 | Result Date: Nov. 14, 1996 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: CV737350 Verdict –  $0

Judge

John S. McInerny

Court

Santa Clara Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Bernard J. Allard


Defendant

Christian B. Nielsen
(Office of the San Jose City Attorney)


Experts

Plaintiff

Warren D. King
(medical)

Mack A. Quan
(technical)

Arthur Clark
(technical)

Defendant

Charles P. Harper
(technical)

Facts

On March 15, 1993, plaintiff Linda Tafoya, a 63-year-old art gallery owner, was seeing defendant Alice M. Collier, a psychotherapist, for therapy at the defendant's home. The defendant occassionally saw the plaintiff for sessions at this location. This was the plaintiff's third visit to the defendant's home. The plaintiff slipped and fell on a hardwood floor in the defendant's home, which was immediately outside the room in which the defendant conducted psychotherapy. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had notice of the "slippery" nature of the hardwood floor and had warned the plaintiff on previous occassions that the floor was a dangerous condition. As a result of her fall, the plaintiff sustained a rotator cuff injury that required subsequent surgical repair. Following her fall, the plaintiff maintained that the defendant asked her to lie about the reason why she was at the defendant's home, so that the defendant would not lose her insurance coverage pursuant to a Business Pursuits exclusion. The plaintiff brought this action against the defendant based on negligence and premises liability theories of recovery.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff made a C.C.P. º998 settlement demand of $150,000. The defendant made a C C.P. º998 offer of compromise for $25,000.

Specials in Evidence

$25,000 $180,000 (per the plaintiff) or $15,000 to $40,000 (per the defendant)

Injuries

The plaintiff alleged she sustained a torn rotator cuff which required surgery five months post accident. The plaintiff was off work for approximately six months, and then had a reduced work period for approximately five additional months. The plaintiff claimed reduced strength and compensatory injuries involving both elbows. The plaintiff's doctor testified she may need a future second rotator cuff repair.

Other Information

The verdict was reached approximately two years and four months after the case was filed. ARBITRATION: An arbitration was held in the Spring of 1994, resulting in an award of $76,000. The defendant requested a trial de novo. The court allowed into evidence over objection of defense counsel, evidence of a conversation between the defendant and her insurance company concerning the plaintiff's status in the home, and the discussions with the insurance company as potential admissions on the issue of notice and as affecting the credibility of the defendant. The case was originally set for trial in March 1995, and trial began which resulted in a mistrial when plaintiff's prior counsel attempted to enter into evidence conversations between the plaintiff's expert and the defendant's expert concerning the slipperiness of the defendant's floor. The defendant withdrew its previous expert before he was deposed, but the plaintiff's expert and the defendant's expert had discussed the case on a previous occassion at which time the defendant's expert had allegedly opined that the floor was unusually slippery and dangerous. The court mistried the first case, and as a result of the mistrial new counsel from each firm tried the case the second time. EXPERT TESTIMONY: Plaintiff's expert, Max Quan, Ph.D., a mechanical engineer, testified that the defendant's floor was abnormally slippery as compared to other commercial and residential hardwood floors. Plaintiff's expert, Art Clark, testified that as a result of the injuries that the plaintiff sustained in the fall, her art gallery business suffered a decline in income of $180,000. Defense expert, Charles Harper, Ph.D., an economist, testified that the plaintiff's income loss was somewhere between $12,000 to $50,000. The defendant did not disclose any experts (in the second trial) on the plaintiff's medical condition or upon the slippperiness of the defendant's hardwood floor.

Deliberation

30 minutes

Poll

12-0

Length

9 days


#79160

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

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