$________ GROSS REDUCED BY 10% FOR COMPARATIVE FAULT Work site accident - Dangerous condition allegedly created by concrete subcontractor - Plaintiff electrician falls down uncovered catch basin - Traumatic aggravation of degenerative disc disease in low back and hip.

Cook County, Illinois

This action arose out of a job site accident involving the male plaintiff, a 52-year-old electrician employed by the City of Chicago. The plaintiff contended that the subcontractor left a catch basin uncovered. The plaintiff inadvertently stepped into the uncovered catch basin, resulting in injuries to his low back and hip.

The subject accident occurred on October 16, ________, while the plaintiff was working in the course of his employment as an electrician for the City of Chicago. The catch basin had recently been installed by the defendant MQ Sewer and Water Contractors, Inc.

Following the accident, the plaintiff presented to the emergency room at Lutheran General complaining only of left shoulder and chest pain.

The plaintiff returned to work the next day and continued to work thereafter until November 11, ________, when he was diagnosed with a left rotator cuff tear, which ultimately required two surgeries. The plaintiff’s treating physician additionally diagnosed the plaintiff as having suffered a traumatic aggravation of degenerative disc disease in the low back and hip. The plaintiff was left with a 16 cm scar on his back from the shoulder surgery and a limp, due to the arthritis on his hip. The defendant denied negligence, asserting that the catch basin was uncovered because the concrete foundation for the street was about to be poured, and that because it was an open and obvious condition, the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. The plaintiff had a workers’ compensation lien of $________, with an offer from the City of Chicago counsel to do a three-way split of any settlement offer.

The jury deliberated for one and one-half hours before it awarded a gross sum of $________, reduced by 10% for the plaintiff’s comparative fault. The breakdown of the award was as follows: $________ for past pain and suffering, $________ for future pain and suffering, $________ for past disability, $________ for disfigurement, $________ for past medical bills, $________ for future medicals, $________ for past earnings and $________ for future earnings.