Defense Verdict in Trip & Fall Case

Appellate Litigation; Bad Faith; Business Litigation; Commercial Litigation; Class Actions; Construction Litigation; Cybersecurity; Data Privacy; Employment Litigation; Environmental Law; Toxic Torts; First-Party Claims; General Liability; Hospitality Liability; Liquor Liability; Insurance Coverage; Insurance Defense; Intellectual Property Litigation; Municipal Liability; Premises Liability; Product Liability; Professional Liability; Transportation Litigation; Workers’ Compensation; Attorney; Attorneys; Lawyer; Lawyers; Law Firm; Boston, Massachusetts; Worcester, Massachusetts; Hartford, Connecticut; Manchester, New Hampshire; Providence, Rhode Island; New York; Portland, Maine; Vermont; New England

Defense Verdict in Trip & Fall Case

Attorney Paul S. Rainville obtained a defense verdict in a negligence / personal injury case following a three-day jury trial in the Worcester Superior Court.

The plaintiff was a 60-year-old woman who worked as a mail carrier for the United States Postal Service.  The plaintiff was delivering mail on a residential route in heavy rain.  The plaintiff opted to cut from one yard to another to save time on her route while sorting mail to get ready for the next drop off.  The plaintiff testified that she caught the front of her boot on an embedded metal pipe, which protruded from the ground about two inches at the edge of the defendant homeowners’ property, and fell hard directly onto her knee.  The defendant homeowners testified that they were generally aware of the marker but did not think it posed a hazard where it was located.

The plaintiff sustained a tibial plateau fracture which was treated conservatively.  She was assigned a 10% permanency to her leg.  The plaintiff attempted to return to work but found she could only work a part time schedule due to her injuries.  She later took an early retirement.

The plaintiff’s attorney argued that the defendants were negligent in not marking the pipe or warning of it, especially because it was the same color as the surrounding dirt, and that the pipe posed a hazard to those on the property as evidenced by the plaintiff’s career ending fall and injuries.  Attorney Rainville argued that the plaintiff was in a rush, not watching what she was doing and essentially caused her own injuries.  He further argued that the defendants did not know that anyone had cut through that area and that there were no other incidences where the boundary marker caused injury.  Finally, the jury was instructed on a statute that prohibited the unauthorized movement of a boundary marker.  Attorney Rainville argued that the defendants did not place the marker and could not move it if they wanted to.

The jury found there was no negligence on the homeowners after deliberating for about 75 minutes.

Share this article
Share this article