$________ Premises liability – Hazardous premises – Plaintiff falls from roof of ranch house and strikes head on patio after encountering bees' nest – Plaintiff advised of nests and believed that he and third-party defendant, for whom he was working, had effectively eradicated nests by spraying them – Cerebral concussion – Mild TBI – Frequent headaches – Cognitive deficits.

Middlesex County, NJ

This case involved a 30-year old who worked as a roofer. The third-party defendant, a co-worker, had enlisted him to help on a side job repairing the defendant’s roof on the weekend. The third-party defendant was uninsured.

The plaintiff asserted that the defendant elderly homeowner negligently failed to properly maintain the roof, resulting in the presence of bees’ nests. The plaintiff and third-party defendant saw the nests earlier in the day and when the defendant said she would call her son to see about rectifying the situation, they purchased spray and believed they had eradicated the nests. A nest remained, however, and as the plaintiff was working on the roof of the ranch house, they swarmed and he fell to the patio below.

The defendant contended that the cause of the incident was the improper actions by the plaintiff. The defendant also maintained that the fault rest with the third-party defendant employer, and the plaintiff contended that applicable codes would not apply to this casual employer who had one person working for him.

The plaintiff asserted that he suffered a severe concussion and post-concussion syndrome. The plaintiff claimed that he will suffer frequent headaches. The plaintiff also maintained that he sustained a cognitive deficit which will permanently cause memory and concentration difficulties. The plaintiff maintained that the injuries will permanently restrict the hours he can work and that he has already incurred substantial income losses. The plaintiff’s economist would have discussed $________ in past and future alleged income losses.

The defendant maintained that medication, including anti-seizure medication, taken by the plaintiff was the cause of the fall. There was no evidence that the fall caused an aggravation of the seizure disorder.The defendant had $________ in coverage. The case settled prior to trial for $________, including $________ from the homeowner and $________ personally from the third-party defendant.