(December 2023) - New York Partners James T. Whalen Jr. and Kevin Zimmerman recently obtained a defense verdict in the New York Supreme Court, Westchester County. In this matter, the plaintiff, a construction worker in his mid-40s, fell from a ladder at a construction site and injured his knee. He has required nine surgeries to address his injury, including a total knee replacement, which may have to be redone.
The plaintiff filed suit against the owner, general contractor, and our insured - a subcontractor - and entered a demand of $7 million. The general contractor and owner subsequently filed third-party claims against our insured, alleging that it was the insured's ladder from which the plaintiff fell. They further contended that the ladder was either defective or set up improperly, which caused the plaintiff's fall. Prior to trial, the plaintiff secured summary judgment against the owner and general contractor pursuant to New York Labor Law. Then, prior to jury selection, the plaintiff's attorney discontinued his action against our insured. The third-party claims proceeded to a bifurcated trial.
Lewis Brisbois filed a motion in limine to redact an accident report that stated that the firm's subcontractor client owned the subject ladder. The Lewis Brisbois team argued that this notation in the report was based on hearsay. During a hearing on the motion, the author of the report admitted, during cross-examination, that she did not know where she obtained the information regarding the ladder's ownership because there were many people in the room when she was writing the report. The motion was granted.
Moreover, during cross-examination of the plaintiff at trial, he was shown pictures of ladders owned by Lewis Brisbois' client. The plaintiff testified that the ladder from which he fell was not marked with the client's name. At the conclusion of the liability portion of the trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Lewis Brisbois' client, and the court dismissed the third-party claims against it. The damages portion of the trial followed, with the jury finding for the plaintiff in the amount of $3.5 million.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.