Premises liability - Fall down - Security guard falls in snowy construction site - Broken leg.

Cook

In this premises liability action, the plaintiff contended that the defendant’s failure to clear the snow or provide adequate warning caused his fall and subsequent injury. The defendant denied liability due to the argument that the plaintiff should have seen and therefore avoided the hazardous area via indents in the snow.

On January 23, ________, the plaintiff, a subcontractor’s security guard, was involved in a slip and fall on a grassy median area covered with snow just below the Portland Cement loading dock. The plaintiff was loading his vehicle at the end of the shift, and had gone through the median to avoid an icy section on the path to the parking lot. This path had known large potholes before the snow.

The plaintiff contended that large metal recycling boxes made depressions in the grassy median which couldn’t be observed under the snow, thus causing him to trip and fall. The defendant real estate company countered that the indentations were better in the grass than the pavement or asphalt where people more commonly walk.

The plaintiff sustained fractured distal tibia and fibula with open reduction and metal plates, installed bilaterally. He continues to limp, but now works as a watchman in a chair.

The plaintiff’s attorney is filing a post-trial motion stating that the jury was not properly instructed before and during the trial. The defense counsel objected to responses to the jury’s queries during the trial in judge’s chambers and was overruled.

The jury ruled in favor of the defendant real estate company.