$________ - PREMISES LIABILITY - DANGEROUS LOADING DOCK RAMP - EXCESSIVE STEEPNESS - INADEQUATE HANDRAIL - SLIP WHILE PULLING HAND TRUCK - MYOFASCITIS - KNEE INJURIES - CERVICAL INJURY WITH RADICULOPATHY.

Philadelphia County

The 46-year-old female plaintiff was making a delivery to the defendant, Moore College of Art & Design, when she slipped while pulling a hand truck up the defendant’s loading dock ramp. The plaintiff alleged that the ramp was excessively steep, slippery and lacked an adequate handrail. The defendant argued that the accident resulted from the plaintiff carrying too much on the hand truck and hurrying up the ramp in the rain.

On June 27, ________, at 10:15 a.m., the plaintiff was making a delivery to the defendant’s Wilson College Hall in Philadelphia. She testified that she slipped while pulling a hand truck filled with cargo up the loading ramp and the pin of the hand truck struck her left knee. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant’s ramp violated the applicable building code because it was three times as steep as the code allowed. The plaintiff’s civil engineer testified that the ramp should have been extended out 37 feet more in order to conform to building code requirements. The plaintiff also alleged that the handrail of the ramp was inadequate due to its wide circumference and that the defendant failed to install a non-slip surface on the ramp.

The plaintiff was transported to the emergency room following the fall where she was diagnosed with injuries to her left knee. The plaintiff’s physician testified that the plaintiff sustained post-traumatic cervical and lumbar myofascitis, radiculopathy at the C-6 level, disc protrusions at C4-C5 and C3-C4, aggravation of stenosis at C4-C5, occipital neuralgia, a torn meniscus in her left knee, chondromalacia of the left knee and a traumatic patellofemoral syndrome in her left knee.

The plaintiff underwent arthroscopic surgery to her left knee 18 months post-accident. Her orthopedic surgeon opined that future cervical surgery is also indicated. The plaintiff sought past medical expenses of $________ and future medical and surgical expenses of $________. The plaintiff’s vocational specialist testified that the plaintiff’s injuries prevented her from continuing to work as a delivery person. The plaintiff’s economist calculated the plaintiff’s past and future loss of wages to be between $________ and $________.

The defendant argued that the ramp was reasonably safe. The defense maintained that it was raining at the time of the plaintiff’s fall and she was carrying too much on the hand truck and was hurrying up the ramp. The defendant argued that the plaintiff should have used techniques taught by her employer which directed her to use alternate entrances when there was a safety concern regarding the primary loading area.

The defendant also contended that the plaintiff’s cervical condition was the result of a previous work-related neck injury that occurred in September ________. On that occasion, the plaintiff was on a freight elevator that dropped abruptly and then stopped sharply. The plaintiff complained of neck pain associated with the prior incident and was in treatment for four months. The defendant’s orthopedic surgeon testified that the plaintiff’s MRIs taken at the time of the prior injury in October, ________, compared with her MRIs after the subject accident in November, ________, showed no change and thus, no new injury.

The jury found the defendant ________% negligent and awarded the plaintiff $________ in damages. The award included $________ in past medical expenses, $________ in future medical expenses, $2 million in past and future loss of wages and $________ in past and future pain and suffering. The defendant has filed a motion for post-trial relief. The plaintiff filed a motion to recover $________ in delay damages.