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/Indemnification

Lynda Gartshore v. Whole Foods Market, Bell Building Maintenance Co.

Published: Jun. 24, 2006 | Result Date: Nov. 16, 2005 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: LC070057 Bench Decision –  $27,500

Court

L.A. Superior Van Nuys


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Joel Parker


Defendant

Mark B. Chassman
(Chassman & Seelig LLP)

Allen Sturgeon
(Sturgeon & Wehbe LLP)


Facts

On Nov. 10, 2003, while shopping at Whole Foods Market, the plaintiff, a woman in her 60s, slipped on a flattened caution sign that was lying on the floor. The plaintiff sustained a torn rotator cuff which required surgery to repair, and future surgery was likely needed to fully recover. The plaintiff sued Whole Foods Market for premises liability and Bell Building Maintenance for negligence. The plaintiff claimed $36,638 in special damages. Whole Foods Market settled with the plaintiff for $27,500. Bell Building settled with the plaintiff for $5,000. The case proceeded to trial on Whole Food's cross-complaint for indemnification against Bell Building.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff contended that Whole Foods Market was negligent in maintaining the store; specifically, in causing the sign to remain flattened on the sales floor creating a dangerous condition.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Whole Foods Market contended that it contracted with Bell Building Maintenance Company, as an independent contractor, to provide maintenance for the store and that if the plaintiff slipped on the sign, it was through the negligence of Bell Building in allowing or causing that condition to exist. Whole Foods also argued that the plaintiff should have seen and avoided the sign, which was open and obvious. Whole Foods sued Bell Building and its owner for indemnification in a cross-complaint.

Bell Building Maintenance Company contended that it was not negligent; that its employees did not cause the sign to be placed on the ground; that plaintiff should have seen and avoided the sign; and that if there were any negligence; Whole Foods was responsible for the plaintiff's injuries.

Settlement Discussions

Before the mediation, the plaintiff made demands into the six figures. At mediation, the plaintiff demanded $75,000. Shortly after the mediation, Whole Foods settled with the plaintiff for $27,500; and Bell Building settled with the plaintiff for $5,000. Bell refused to settle the cross-complaint.

Damages

$27,500 (as to the cross-complaint)

Result

After a two-day court trial on the indemnification claim, the Court found that Bell Building Maintenance Company was negligent and that its negligence caused the plaintiff's injury and damages. The Court awarded Whole Foods Market full indemnification for $27,500 it paid in settlement to plaintiff and costs of $7,248, for a total judgment in favor of Whole Foods Market for $34,748.

Other Information

Bell Building Maintenance Company paid the full judgment amount and the case has not been appealed.


#92548

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

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