Angelique Vandhana v. Archstone Smith
Published: Dec. 19, 2009 | Result Date: Nov. 20, 2009 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: CIVRS802515 Bench Verdict – Defense
Court
San Bernardino Superior, Rancho Cucamonga
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Kevin J. Gramling
(Klinedinst PC)
Experts
Plaintiff
James Doti
(medical)
Jay William Preston
(technical)
Defendant
Kenneth A. Solomon
(technical)
Arthur Kreitenberg M.D.
(medical)
Facts
Plaintiff Angelique Vandhana was a tenant at an apartment community owned and managed by defendant Archstone Smith in Ontario. The plaintiff tripped and fell over a crack in the parking lot. The crack was 135 inches long, 1.5 inches wide, and with a maximum elevation difference of half an inch.
Contentions
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff contended that the crack was a dangerous condition that should have been repaired by the defendant.
DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant contended that the crack in the parking lot was a trivial defect and that it did not owe plaintiff a duty to repair or warn about the crack. The defendant also contended that it was not negligent and that the crack did not cause the plaintiff's fall.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiff demanded $400,000 pre-litigation and served a C.C.P. Section 998 for $99,500 nine months before trial. The defendant made a C.C.P. Section 998 offer of $20,001 nine months before trial. The defendant did not make any other offers.
Specials in Evidence
$104,000 $8,700 none none
Damages
The plaintiff asked the jury to award over $600,000 in past non-economic damages and over $90,000 in future non-economic damages.
Injuries
The plaintiff ruptured her left Achilles tendon. The following day, the plaintiff ruptured her right Achilles tendon. The plaintiff had surgery on both Achilles tendons and missed approximately six months of work.
Result
The judge granted the defendant's post-trial directed verdict motion finding the crack was a trivial defect.
Other Information
The defendant's motion for summary judgment on the trivial defect issue was denied. The defendant's directed verdict motion during trial was denied. The jury could not reach a verdict on whether the defendant was negligent and the judge declared a mistrial. The defendant is seeking costs and fees. FILING DATE: March 14, 2008.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390