Bill Mitchell, Sharon Mitchell v. The Gorda Springs Resort by the Sea, Whale Watcher Cafe, Sherwin Miller, Mary Miller
Published: Dec. 10, 2005 | Result Date: Oct. 12, 2005 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: CVM67784 Verdict – $0
Judge
Court
Monterey Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Joseph D. Cooper
(Cooper & Cooper LLP)
Experts
Plaintiff
William F. Dexter
(technical)
Defendant
Gordon L. Levin M.D.
(medical)
Daniel S. Merrick
(technical)
James E. Flynn
(technical)
Facts
Plaintiff Sharon Mitchell is a resident of the State of Oregon and, along with her husband, were guests at the Gorda Springs Resort in South Monterey County, when the plaintiff fell stepping down from a landing down to the patio below. The landing is located in front of the restrooms. The plaintiff claims that she broke her hip as a result of the fall.
Contentions
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff contended that the landing area constituted a dangerous and/or defective condition of the property and that the step was non-compliant with the applicable Uniform Building Code. The plaintiff contended that the step was "camouflaged" by virtue of the Saltillo tile placed upon the landing and patio area beyond, which constituted a dangerous condition. Moreover, the plaintiff alleged that striping was required for the step.
The plaintiff further contended that her bipolar arthoplasty/hip replacement was due to her fall from the landing to the patio. She contended that she would need life-long care and hip replacement. The plaintiff further contended that she had to quit her $50,000 per year job at age 55 when she intended on working for at least another 20 years, that she had to forsake her active outdoor life, and that she suffered depression.
The plaintiff's husband also contended that he had suffered a loss of society, comfort, and consortium because of his wife's condition.
DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
The defendants contended that a reasonably attentive patron would have noticed the obvious step. The handrail which evinced an elevation change was evident to the plaintiff as well as other visual ques in and around the outdoor landing and patio area. The defendants contended that no striping was required because the landing did not constitute a "stairway" pursuant to the Uniform Building Code and that the plaintiff was not one of the protected class of persons to whom striping would be directed in any event in that she was not "visually impaired." Medically, the defendants contended that the plaintiff was in the same position she would have enjoyed had the fall not occurred because her prosthetic was stable, and her pre-existing condition suggested continued deterioration of her ability to ambulate. Defendants contended that the plaintiff's polio, post/polio, auto-immune deficiency disorder, and connective tissue disease were factors in her overall healthcare picture and future prognosis.
Settlement Discussions
The defendants made a C.C.P. Section 998 offer of $2,501. The plaintiff demanded $125,000.
Injuries
The plaintiff sustained a broken hip on the defendants' premises. She claimed $58,508 in medical expenses. The Defendants presented evidence that the plaintiff's total actual paid costs were approximately $4,132, the HANIF number.
Result
Defense verdict.
Deliberation
one hour
Poll
11-1
Length
seven days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390