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
Fall

Jonathan Barnett, a minor, by and through his GAL, Michele Barnett; Michele Barnett v. Toucan's Pizza and Fun Park; Mike Shaffer

Published: Feb. 8, 1997 | Result Date: Aug. 13, 1996 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 95172027 Verdict –  $0

Judge

John P. Moran

Court

Tulare Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Leon E. Tirapelle


Defendant

Karen E. Lintott


Experts

Plaintiff

Stephen McAuliffe
(medical)

Dennis R. Malkasian
(medical)

Defendant

Thomas Thompson
(medical)

Facts

On Aug. 14, 1995, at approximately 4:00 p.m., plaintiff Jonathan Barrett, a 10-year-old student, was a guest at defendant Toucan's Pizza & Fun Park. The plaintiff alleged that Toucan's employee, defendant Mike Shaffer, dammed the water at the entrance to the waterslide, causing a burst of water to strike the plaintiff as he was standing up on the slide. The plaintiff suffered an injury to his mouth in the fall. The defendants denied that Shaffer dammed the water on the slide and claimed that the plaintiff fell because he stood up on the slippery surface of the waterslide. The plaintiff brought this action against the defendants based on negligence and premises liability theories of recovery.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff made a C.C.P. º998 settlement demand for $10,000. The defendants made a C.C.P. º998 offer of compromise for $5,000.

Specials in Evidence

$7,500 to $10,000 $______________

Injuries

The plaintiff alleged that his front tooth was pushed up into his gum and was later extracted as a result of the incident.

Other Information

EXPERT TESTIMONY: The plaintiff's medical expert testified that the plaintiff had a pre-existing orthodontic problem, but that loss of the tooth caused his teeth to shift, resulting in a need for two phases of orthodontic treatment and a permanent tooth replacement at age 18. The defendants' medical expert testified the plaintiff had a pre-existing orthodontic problem requiring braces; that his teeth did not shift as a result of the accident; that the loss of the tooth added, at most, 20 percent to the overall cost of treatment; and that the need for phase II treatment could not be determined until the plaintiffs' permanent teeth were in (at approximately age 14).

Deliberation

2 hours

Poll

12-0

Length

4 days


#79193

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

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