ARTICLE ID 6905
$________ GROSS Negligent design and installation of shelving rack unit - Plaintiff sprinkler fitter falls from height of 30 feet - Herniated cervical and lumbar discs - Two cervical fusions - Future lumbar laminectomy.
Cook County, Illinois
The plaintiff was a 31-year-old sprinkler fitter working on the construction
of a Kmart distribution center. While sitting atop a shelving rack
unit designed and installed by the main defendants, the plaintiff
slipped off the edge and fell 30 feet to the ground. The plaintiff
sustained herniated cervical and lumbar discs and underwent two cervical
fusion procedures. His doctor also recommended a lumbar laminectomy
which the plaintiff had not yet undergone at the time of trial. The
plaintiff contended that the main defendants negligently designed
and installed the shelving rack unit by improperly covering the units
top level with corrugated fire baffles which were undersized and unsecured.
The plaintiff asserted that one of the baffles came loose as he was
sliding along the edge of the rack system, causing him to fall. The
plaintiff also sued the company which supplied the fire baffles and
Kmart Corporation, which oversaw the construction project. The plaintiff
sought compensation for disability, pain and suffering, medical expenses
and future wage loss.
Testimony established that the shelving rack unit was installed two
weeks before the plaintiffs fall and that it included corrugated
steel fire baffles on top. The plaintiff and his co- workers used
the racks as scaffolding as they installed the sprinkler system. One
of the plaintiffs co-workers who testified that he witnessed the
accident said that first he saw a baffle fall, followed by the plaintiff.
The co-worker further testified that because he suspected the baffle
slipped off the edge of the rack, he measured the baffle and found
it was undersized. The baffle was not preserved and was lost due to
no apparent fault of plaintiff. Rebutting the defendants assertion
that the plaintiffs failure to use fall protection equipment caused
or contributed to his injuries, the plaintiff testified that he was
following his employers directions, using the equipment given to
him, and working as safely as possible under the circumstances.
According to testimony from the defendant installers representatives,
the installer was responsible for putting the baffles in place and
making sure they were properly sized. The installers representatives
admitted that the baffles could slide off the rack system only if
they were undersized. Representatives of the defendant baffle manufacturer
testified that the baffles were not designed to support the weight
of a person. However, the plaintiffs structural engineering expert
testified that the baffles were strong enough to support over ________
pounds and a concentrated load of nearly ________ pounds. The expert also
pointed out that according to literature issued by the manufacturer,
the baffles could support a distributed load of over ________ pounds.
The expert concluded that the only explanation for the baffle slipping
was that it was undersized.
The plaintiff suffered no fractures in the fall. He was taken to the
emergency room where he was examined for blood in his kidneys and
cardiac instability. He discharged himself from the hospital the same
day and returned to work several days later. The plaintiff eventually
had an MRI which showed a C4-5 herniated disc and he underwent a C4-5
disc fusion procedure. The C5-6 disc space was fused five years later.
The plaintiff also apparently suffered an L4-5 herniation in the fall
and his neurosurgeon recommended a laminectomy. The plaintiff, who
missed one year of work and then returned to his pre-accident trade,
testified that he decided to delay the surgery and would not have
the operation for another three years when he will be fully vested
in his unions pension program. The plaintiffs doctors testified
that due to his injuries and resulting limitations, the plaintiff
should change his occupation. The plaintiff testified that once he
has the surgery, he will follow his doctors advice and quit working
as a sprinkler fitter.
The main defendants denied they were negligent and maintained that
they never intended the system to be used as scaffolding by laborers
such as the plaintiff. The defendants also claimed that the plaintiff
assumed the risk of injury and was contributorily negligent for failing
to use fall protection equipment.
The plaintiff settled with Kmart for $________ prior to trial. In pre-trial
settlement negotiations, the plaintiff demanded $________ while the
defendant contractor and defendant installer offered a total of $________.
At trial, the plaintiff requested a verdict of $________. The jury
found the rack contractor and installer 88% at fault and the plaintiff
2% contributorily negligent. The remaining liability was assessed
against Kmart (3%) and the plaintiffs employer (7%). The jury also
determined the plaintiffs damages totaled $________, consisting
of $________ for disability, $________ for past pain and suffering,
$________ for future pain and suffering, $________ for past medical expenses,
$________ for future medical expenses, $________ for past wage loss and
$________ for future wage loss. The defendants post-trial motions
were denied and the case is currently on appeal.
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:
- Determine if a case is winnable and recovery amounts.
- Determine reasonable demand for a case early on.
- Support a settlement demand by establishing precedent.
- Research trial strategies, tactics and arguments.
- 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.