ShopRite: Customer Negligent for Trip, Fall in Store
On Feb. 5, 2016, plaintiff Deborah Valotta, in her late 40s, tripped and fell at a ShopRite in Philadelphia. She suffered a thumb fracture and claimed a shoulder injury.
May 07, 2020 at 03:15 PM
4 minute read
Valotta v. Ammons Supermarket
Defense Verdict
Date of Verdict: Jan. 3.
Court and Case No.: C.P. Philadelphia No. 180101437.
Judge: Stella M. Tsai.
Type of Action: Premises liability, slip and fall.
Injuries: Thumb fracture, shoulder injury.
Plaintiffs Counsel: John L. Aris, Lowenthal & Abrams, Philadelphia.
Plaintiffs Experts: Lance O. Yarus, orthopedic surgery, Philadelphia; Stephen B. Wilcox, human factors.
Defense Counsel: Elizabeth Chalik, Kennedys Law, Philadelphia.
Defense Expert: Laurence R. Wolf, orthopedic surgery, Wynnewood.
Comment:
On Feb. 5, 2016, plaintiff Deborah Valotta, in her late 40s, tripped and fell at a ShopRite in Philadelphia. She suffered a thumb fracture and claimed a shoulder injury.
Valotta sued the store owner, Ammons Supermarket LLC, and its elated entity Wakefern Food Corp. Valotta alleged that the store was negligent for allowing a dangerous condition to exist. Valotta was shopping in an aisle when she tripped over a storage bin that had been set on the floor by a store employee working in the aisle. The storage bin was one of many bins that had been in the aisle. Valotta's counsel cited a store surveillance video of the accident to argue that the ShopRite employee was negligent for improperly and unsafely placing the bins in the walkway of shoppers like Valotta.
The defense maintained that Valotta was contributorily negligent. The defense cited the surveillance video to argue that Valotta was well aware of the bins' presence—an open and obvious condition—since she initially walked around the bins as she headed toward a shelf to retrieve a product. After getting the product, instead of exiting where she came from, which was a clear path, Valotta turned to an area where a bin was, and then tripped over the bin. The defense contended that here was no negligence on the part of the ShopRite employee, and that Valotta was clearly negligent for the accident.
On Feb. 11, 2016, six days after the accident, Valotta presented to an emergency room. She complained of pain in her left thumb. She was X-rayed and diagnosed with a fractured thumb. Her thumb was splinted, and Valotta was discharged.
Valotta was ultimately diagnosed with an aggravation of a preexisting shoulder injury and strains and sprains of her cervical and lumbar spine.
Within weeks of the accident, she presented to a chiropractor, with whom she treated for nine months; her treatment consisted of massage and spinal manipulation. During that time, she treated with a pain management specialist who prescribed pain medication; she also underwent MRIs, which showed degenerative changes in her neck and back. She received no further treatment.
Valotta's expert in orthopedic surgery attributed her injuries and treatment to the surgery. The expert stated that Valotta requires future treatment for her shoulder, including injections and surgeries.
Valotta testified that she continues to suffer from pain in her left shoulder. This allegedly interferes with her performing activities of daily living. She sought to recover hundreds of thousands of dollars in future medical costs, plus damages for past and future pain and suffering.
The defense questioned the legitimacy of Valotta's complaints. In her exam with her medical expert, Valotta rated her pain a nine out of 10 and told him that she had difficulty bending over. However, her medical records indicated that 20 days prior to her exam she was bending over, performing yardwork with no trouble.
According to the defense's expert in orthopedic surgery, any injury that Valotta suffered would have been a strain and sprain, which would have resolved within a few weeks. There was no objective evidence that Valotta suffered an aggravation of a pre-existing shoulder injury, the expert opined.
The jury found Valotta 80% liable and ShopRite 20% liable.
This report is based on information that was provided by defense counsel. Plaintiffs counsel declined to contribute.
—This report first appeared in VerdictSearch, an ALM publication
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPa. Federal District Courts Reach Full Complement Following Latest Confirmation
The Defense Bar Is Feeling the Strain: Busy Med Mal Trial Schedules Might Be Phila.'s 'New Normal'
7 minute readFederal Judge Allows Elderly Woman's Consumer Protection Suit to Proceed Against Citizens Bank
5 minute readJudge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Trailblazing Broward Judge Retires; Legacy Includes Bush v. Gore
- 2Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
- 3'Almost an Arms Race': California Law Firms Scooped Up Lateral Talent by the Handful in 2024
- 4Pittsburgh Judge Rules Loan Company's Online Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable
- 5As a New Year Dawns, the Value of Florida’s Revised Mediation Laws Comes Into Greater Focus
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250