April 22, 2008 : Jury Finds For Mall in Bench Collapse Case

Partner Marc B. Zingarini and associate Shawane L. Lee of the Firm's Philadelphia office recently obtained a defense verdict in a premises liability case on behalf of an area shopping mall. 

The plaintiff and his wife (who sued for loss of consortium) were at the mall with relatives visiting from New Mexico on June 29, 2005.  The plaintiff, who was on crutches from an Achilles tendon injury he sustained a couple of months prior, sat down on a bench which suddenly collapsed, causing him lower back injuries.  He claimed that he had an L4-5 disc protrusion and an L5-S1 radiculopathy from the injury. 

Plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion in limine to preclude the plaintiff's prior lawsuits, which included a lower back injury in an incident in 1998 when a booth he sat in suddenly collapsed; a 2000 car accident where he claimed lower back injuries; and a subsequent chair collapse incident at work after the mall incident in 2006.  Judge Victor J. DiNubile of the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas granted the mall's counter-motion and allowed the prior lawsuits to be introduced into evidence. 

In addition to the prior lawsuits, the defense was able to establish through medical records that had been subpoenaed from the medical providers that the plaintiff had additional lower back problems.  The defense medical expert opined that the plaintiff's series of back injuries from his prior accidents caused the disc protrusion and radiculopathy in question.  The expert further testified that the most plaintiff sustained in the fall was a soft-tissue strain and sprain.

The plaintiffs presented an engineer who opined that the bench collapsed because the mall did not have a preventative maintenance program in place for the benches.  On cross-examination, Mr. Zingarini established through the plaintiff's liability expert that the mall had performed maintenance and inspection to the bench at issue by, among other things, placing L-brackets to support the benches. 

After 15 minutes of deliberation, the jury returned a defense verdict in favor of the mall.