Finding Plaintiff's Claim Implausible, Brooklyn Jury Rejects Trip & Fall Claim
To be clear, I'm not saying that this particular plaintiff was making up his trip and fall claim. But a Brooklyn jury's recent dismissal of a trip and fall case should serve as a powerful reminder that juries are pretty smart - and they will throw out cases that they think are manufactured - or made up.
In Niles v. City of New York, the plaintiff claimed that he tripped and fell over a depression in a City sidewalk that had been created by a footprint. As a result of the fall, he suffered serious personal injuries, including a torn Achilles tendon. At trial, his attorney was even able to demonstrate that the City had prior written notice of that sidewalk defect.
But there was one "small" problem.
The jury apparently didn't believe that he fell on that area of sidewalk.
Instead, they believed the City attorney's contention that given the location where plaintiff had disembarked from the bus that was taking him to his destination, there was no logical reason that he would have passed by the area where he claimed he fell.
Category: Slip / Trip and Fall Accidents
There are no comments.
Post a comment
Post a Comment to "Finding Plaintiff's Claim Implausible, Brooklyn Jury Rejects Trip & Fall Claim"To reply to this message, enter your reply in the box labeled "Message", hit "Post Message."