$________ GROSS – PREMISES LIABILITY – TRIP AND FALL IN PARKING LOT – SHOULDER INJURY – CERVICAL HERNIATION WITH SURGERY – 32% COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE FOUND.

Philadelphia County, PA

This action arose when the plaintiff tripped and fell in the parking lot of the defendant drug store. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was negligent in maintaining the parking lot and allowed a hole to exist, which caused the plaintiff’s fall. The defendant argued that the hole in question was deminimis and did not cause the plaintiff’s fall. The plaintiff was a 34-year-old man at the time of the fall in May ________. He testified that he was walking to his car in the defendant’s parking lot and was distracted by traffic, when his foot hit a small hole and caused him to stumble forward and fall. The plaintiff claimed that the fall caused a right shoulder injury, including tendonitis and impingement syndrome which required injection therapy. He also alleged that the fall caused a herniated cervical disc. He underwent cervical surgery in December ________. He introduced a video surveillance taken at the request of the defense. The video showed the plaintiff putting balloons on a grave and argued that the film corroborated the plaintiff’s claims, as it depicted the plaintiff using only his left arm and hand as a result of his neck injury. The plaintiff was employed as a risk manager for a company which evaluated workers’ compensation claims. He returned to his former employment, but alleged that his fall-related injuries caused him to lose the opportunity for a promotion. The plaintiff sought $________ in loss of future earnings.

The defendant contended that the defect at issue was too small to be considered dangerous. A store surveillance camera did not capture the fall, but showed the plaintiff lying on the ground after the fall. The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s position on the ground was too far away from the hole for the hole to have been the cause of the fall. The defendant’s medical experts opined that both the plaintiff’s shoulder and neck condition preexisted the date of the fall. The defense also disputed the plaintiff’s claim for loss of future earnings and argued that he had returned to work at the same salary and benefits that he earned before the fall.The jury found the defendant 68% negligent and the plaintiff 32% comparatively negligent. The jury awarded gross damages of $________. A high/low agreement reached between the parties prior to verdict allowed the plaintiff to recover $________.