. .

Invest in your success.
JVRA helps lawyers win cases by providing critical information you can use to establish precedent, determine demand and win arguments.

ARTICLE ID 188776

$________ Premises Liability – Fall Down – Slip and fall on ice – Failure to timely remove ice and snow from doorway – Trimalleolar ankle fracture requiring open reduction and internal fixation – 15% impairment of ankle.

Hampden County, MA

In this premises liability matter, the plaintiff, a construction worker performing work on the defendant’s building, alleged that the defendants were negligent in failing to keep ice from accumulating near a doorway. As the plaintiff exited the building, he slipped on ice and fell, fracturing his ankle. He was required to have a surgical repair of the fracture. The defendants denied liability and argued that the plaintiff is liable for his own injuries and damages because he failed to watch his step. In addition, the defendants disputed the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries and damages.

The 45-year-old male plaintiff, a construction worker, was working on the renovation of one of the defendant amusement park’s buildings in early ________ while the park was closed to the public. On the date of the incident, the plaintiff needed to exit the building, but was unable to use the front door due to the presence of a cement truck so he exited the building through the back door. As the plaintiff exited the door, he slipped on ice that had accumulated from a large storm a month earlier.

The plaintiff injured his ankle as a result of the fall. He was diagnosed with a trimalleolar fracture of his ankle which required open reduction and internal fixation surgery. As a result of his injury, the plaintiff was assessed with a 15% ankle impairment. The plaintiff brought suit against the defendants, owners and operators of the amusement park alleging negligence. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were negligent in failing to remove the ice which had accumulated and in failing to provide safe egress from the building.

The defendants denied the allegations. The defendants contended that the plaintiff was aware of the existence of the ice and failed to exercise due care in exiting the building. The defendants also disputed the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries and damages. The plaintiff acknowledged that he was aware of the existence of the ice at the rear entrance to the building, but had never had occasion to use that door until he was unable to leave due to the cement truck.The matter proceeded to trial. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury deliberated for four hours and returned its verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The jury awarded the plaintiff a total of $________ and assessed liability at 50% to the plaintiff and 50% to the defendant.

To read the full article, please login to your account or purchase

5 ways to win with JVRA

JVRA gives you jurisdiction-specific, year-round insight into the strategies, arguments and tactics that win. Successful attorneys come to the table prepared and use JVRA to:

  1. Determine if a case is winnable and recovery amounts.
  2. Determine reasonable demand for a case early on.
  3. Support a settlement demand by establishing precedent.
  4. Research trial strategies, tactics and arguments.
  5. Defeat or support post-trial motions through past case histories.

Try JVRA for a day or a month, or sign up for our deluxe Litigation Support Plan and put the intelligence of JVRA to work for all of your clients. See our subscription plans.