Andy Kramer recently tried a premises liability case in the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas.
The plaintiff alleged that as a result of an accident she suffered a significant femoral fracture to her right leg and a disfiguring laceration to her left knee. The plaintiff's allegations based on her testimony was that the area in question was a known hazardous condition which should have been padded or reconfigured so that the plaintiff would not have been injured. The plaintiff presented expert testimony from an engineer who had padded similar facilities. In order to repair her fracture the plaintiff had an open reduction with internal fixation which required her to be entirely out of work for six months and then to slowly resume her full work duties over the next six months' period of time. The plaintiff testified at the time of trial that she was still having discomfort in her leg because of the fracture and the placement of the hardware.
The defense arguments were that padding of the area in question was impractical and would not have made a difference in the avoidance of the plaintiff's injury. A private investigator conducted some surveillance of the plaintiff and she was observed to be walking and working without any significant difficulty approximately fifteen months after the accident. The jury returned a defense verdict on behalf of Mr. Kramer's clients.