Locicero v. Cescaphe

$327,281.43 Verdict

Date of Verdict: Oct. 16, 2019.

Court and Case No.: C.P. Philadelphia No. 180603677.

Judge: Abbe F. Fletman.

Type of Action: Premises liability, slip and fall.

Injuries: Wrist fracture.

Plaintiffs Counsel: Jordan L. Strokovsky, Strokovsky LLC.

Plaintiffs Experts: Alex Karras, life care planning, Frazer; Ryan M. Dowling, orthopedic surgery, Wayne, New Jersey; Rahul Sood, pain management, Clifton.

Defense Counsel: Anthony R. DeLuca, Styliades, Mezzanotte & Hasson, Philadelphia.

Defense Expert: Debbe Marcinko, life care planning, Pittsburgh.

Comment:

On Oct. 20, 2017, plaintiff Sally Ann Locicero, 57, slipped and fell at a wedding reception at Vie in Philadelphia. Locicero suffered a wrist fracture.

Locicero sued property owners Cescaphe Ltd. LLC and Illona LLC, as well as 600 North Broad GP LLC, the out-of-possession landlord. Locicero alleged that they were negligent in allowing a dangerous condition to exist.

Landlord 600 North Broad GP LLC was dismissed prior to trial. The case proceeded against the property owners only.

The lawsuit alleged that Locicero and her husband were dancing on the venue's hardwood floors when they saw a guest spill a drink. The spilled drink was subsequently cleaned up by one of the venue's employees. However, as Locicero and her husband continued to dance, she slipped in the area of the spilled drink, landing on her right wrist.

Locicero's counsel asserted that Vie's staff cleaned up the spilled drink insufficiently and inadequately. According to the lawsuit, a few days after the accident Locicero's husband notified Vie.

Locicero's counsel alleged that Vie was further negligent in not preserving any video surveillance of the wedding reception. As a result, the court granted an adverse inference in favor of Locicero.

The defense maintained that Vie's employees properly addressed and remediated any spills that occurred on the day of Locicero's accident. The defense also questioned whether Locicero fell as she alleged. The defense cited Locicero's physical therapy records, in which she stated that she tripped and fell over her gown.

Locicero and her husband testified that she was wearing pants, and not a gown, on the day of the accident.

Upon falling, Locicero was assisted to her feet by her husband. The couple then exited the venue, and Locicero was taken by ambulance to an emergency room. She was diagnosed with fractures of the ulnar and radius of her right, dominant arm.

On Oct. 22, 2017, two days after the accident, Locicero underwent an open reduction with internal fixation, in which a plate and screws were implanted in her wrist. She was then discharged. Two weeks later, Locicero began a course of physical therapy for the next two years. The physical therapy was ongoing at the time of trial. During that time, Locicero consulted her orthopedic surgeon and a pain management doctor, and received a cortisone injection and stellate ganglion block injection.

Locicero's orthopedic surgeon testified that Locicero suffered a permanent wrist injury and that her surgical hardware will remain indefinitely.

Locicero's pain management physician opined that Locicero requires implantation of a spinal cord stimulator to address her ongoing wrist pain and swelling. The stimulator will remain indefinitely, the physician concluded.

Locicero testified that she suffers from ongoing pain and swelling in her right wrist. This allegedly interferes with her fine motor skills, as she has difficulty with grooming, including fastening buttons.

Locicero sought to recover a medical lien of approximately $100,000, plus future medical costs of $75,000, as well as damages for past and future pain and suffering. Her husband sought damages for loss of consortium.

The defense's expert in orthopedic surgery testified that Locicero made a good recovery and had no ongoing limitations. According to the expert, Locicero would not require a spinal cord stimulator.

The defense's life care planning expert stated that, because Locicero does not require a spinal cord stimulator, her future medical costs would be significantly less.

The jury found that Vie was negligent and its negligence was a factual cause of harm to Locicero. The jury determined that Locicero's damages totaled $327,281.43.

This report is based on information that was provided by plaintiffs counsel. Counsel of Cescaphe and Illona did not respond to phone calls, and 600 North Broad GP's counsel was not asked to contribute.

—This report first appeared in VerdictSearch, an ALM publication