Facts

Plaintiff claimed that on Sept. 10, 2005 at approximately 7:30 p.m., she slipped and fell at defendant's store in the detergent aisle on what appeared to be a small spill of detergent approximately 3 to 5 inches in circular diameter. There were no other skid marks in the spill other than her foot and there were no track marks, such as wheels tracking the substance down the aisle. Plaintiff has no knowledge what caused the spill or how long it had been there.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant presented evidence, which included a video of plaintiff at her IME, walking in and showing the doctor her limitations while trying to go up and down stairs. She would lead with her left foot and slowly bring her right foot forward. The defendant then played a video taken within a month of that appointment, demonstrating plaintiff walking a mile and a half with her girlfriend to the store, with no limitation, and carrying two bags of groceries up steps, with no limitations.

The defendant's medical expert, a radiologist, testified and opined that he found absolutely nothing wrong with her knee that would explain the medical conditions complained of by plaintiff or would require any kind of future medical care.

The defense further argued that the fact that defendant had a permanent designated sweeper who swept the aisles every 30 minutes established that defendant's acts were well within the custom and practice of the industry and that defendant used reasonable care in the maintenance of its property.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff initially demanded $150,000 and then dropped to $75,000 at the MSC. Subsequently, defendant filed a $15,000 C.C.P. section 998 statutory offer approximately two weeks before trial. Before the trial was to begin, plaintiff offered to accept defendant's prior C.C.P. Section 998 offer to compromise for $5,000. That offer was refused.

Damages

The plaintiff presented approximately $3,300 in medical specials and demanded $15,000.

Injuries

The plaintiff testified that her injury consisted of continuous knee pain. Dr. Herrera treated plaintiff for approximately two and a half months. She initially testified that she stopped working within a week of the incident and had not returned to work. She could no longer mop her floor because of the walking back and forth and the pain in her knee. She could not walk a residential block before she was compelled to sit down due to the pain in her knee. She also could not shop because of this pain.

Result

Bench decision for the defense.

Other Information

Defendants were awarded a cost bill for the approximate sum of $24,000. The plaintiff argued the sweep sheet was fabricated and could not be relied upon, and that it constituted interference because it was created after the fact to cover up prior notice of the spill as well as the length of time between sweeps. Defense expert Alex Balian testified that the sweep sheet was irrelevant and did not need to be used by the store, as they had a only one dedicated sweeper whose sole task was to sweep every 30 minutes. Balian testified that the store did not fall below the standard of care and given the spill's location, did not believe that it was present for more than a few minutes. Mark S. Girguis, M.D., radiologist, testified that plaintiff's MRI of the knee showed absolutely no condition that could explain her claimed knee pain and inability to stand and walk any distance. FILING DATE: June 4, 2007.