Facts

On Jan. 5, 2012, plaintiff Dawna Holland was on the wooden deck of a home she was renting with her four-year-old grandson having a picnic lunch. As they were having lunch, a neighbor's German Sheppard/Doberman Pincher mix appeared in the back yard. While attempting to ward off the dog, plaintiff stepped on a broken step and fell.

Holland sued Linda Goncher and Dana Barbour, the property owner and manager, and Heather Self, the dog owner.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended that after a guest of hers had fallen on a broken step on the deck, she wrote a letter to the landlord notifying her of the broken and dangerous condition. This was a month prior to plaintiff's fall. She complained again, in writing, days before her fall. Plaintiff claimed the property owner and manager were negligent in the use and maintenance of the property. After being notified of a dangerous condition, they did nothing to repair it. Plaintiff also claimed that the doctrine of Sudden Emergency excuses any comparative fault regarding the steps.

Plaintiff alleged the dog had frequently escaped its owner's property and wandered at large. Plaintiff claimed that on this day, it was aggressive and menacing. Fearing for her grandson's safety, plaintiff approached the dog after grabbing a nearby shovel. In the panic of the moment, she stepped over the first step and the second step collapsed, causing her to fall forward. As she fell, she threw the shovel and hit the dog, which was only 5-7 feet away. Plaintiff claimed that the dog owner was negligent per se for letting the dog escape her property.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendants Goncher and Barbour contended they attempted to repair the step but was unable to coordinate a convenient time with plaintiff. They further contended that plaintiff fell on the second step, which was not the step she was complaining about. Furthermore, since plaintiff knew the step was dangerous, she is comparatively negligent.

Defendant Self contended that the incident did not occur as plaintiff claimed. Defendants disputed there was any sudden emergency and plaintiff was simply fed up with the dog and approached it with the intent to hurt it.

Settlement Discussions

Defendants' combined offers were $60,000. Plaintiff's Last demand was $200,000.

Specials in Evidence

$35,000

Injuries

Plaintiff claimed she suffered injury to right knee and right shoulder. All treatment was done at Kaiser. The injuries required arthroscopic surgeries of the knee and shoulder. Plaintiff continues to complain of pain and swelling in the knee. At the time of trial, she was still in physical therapy following the shoulder surgery. All defendants disputed plaintiff's injuries.

Result

Plaintiff's verdict for $185,000. The jury found the property owner and manager 70 percent at fault, the dog owner 20 percent at fault, and the plaintiff 10 percent at fault.

Other Information

FILING DATE: Oct. 17, 2012.

Deliberation

six hours

Length

six days