A company’s
failure to follow the advice of its safety coordinator to remedy
a dangerous condition on its public stairway led to a serious
fall and head injury for our client, Liesa Brown.
John Parisi and Scott Nutter represented Ms. Brown in her claim
against Utilicorp alleging that the stairway was unreasonably
dangerous and did not have adequate safety devices. The case was
settled at mediation for $1,500,000.
On October 16, 2001, Ms. Brown, on the job as a United Way Fundraiser,
was descending the stairs of the corporate headquarters of Utilicorp
in Kansas City, Missouri. The large old marble stairway was slick
and wet from rain earlier in the day. The stairway did not have
any non-skid strips or center railing to assist someone descending
the stairs. As Ms. Brown walked down the stairs, she slipped and
tumbled down the stairs, suffering a traumatic brain injury.
Our firm conducted an extensive investigation. Former Utilicorp
employees indicated that the dangerous condition on the marble
stairway had been known to the company for some time. A former
employee divulged that the Utilicorp safety coordinator had previously
reported to corporate officials that the marble stairway was dangerous
because the steps were slick and without a nonskid surface and
the large stairway did not have a central railing. Unfortunately
for Ms. Brown, this important safety issue |
| as not addressed by the company, nor was
any warning given to invitees to the business. |
Under Missouri law, for Utilicorp to be held liable, the plaintiff
had to prove that the company had constructive knowledge of
the dangerous condition of the stairway. A company owes a
business invitee the duty to: (1) exercise reasonable care;
(2) disclose to the invitee all dangerous conditions which
are known to the company and are likely not to be discovered
by the invitee, and; (3) see that the premises are safe for
a visitor, or at least ascertain the condition of the premises
to give a warning so that the invitee may decide whether or
not to accept the invitation, and may protect himself against
the danger if he does accept it. Preston v. Wal-Mart, 923
S.W. 2d 426 (Mo. App. W.D. 1996) (Citing Restatement (Second)
of Torts, § 343, comment b.) When a dangerous condition
is so open and obvious that the invitee should reasonably
be expected to discover it and realize the danger, a possessor
of land does not breach the duty of care owed to invitees
“unless the possessor should anticipate the harm despite
such knowledge or obviousness.” Id. (Citing Restatement
(Second) of Torts, § 343, A(1) (1965)).
|
| A second issue in Ms. Brown’s case,
and one that appears in most slip and fall cases, was the
defendant’s claim that the plaintiff was contributorily
at fault for the injury, either because she was walking too
fast, was not paying |
 |
|
attention, was not using the handrail,
or any other reason that could place blame for the fall on the
injured party.
The damages aspect of the case presented the challenges of proof
that accompany many traumatic head injury cases. Ms. Brown was
injured in the scope and course of her employment, and her employer’s
workers’ compensation carrier required that she be evaluated
by separate neuropsychologists to evaluate her claim of a traumatic
brain injury from the fall. The neuropsychologists tied many of
Ms. Brown’s deficits in short term memory and overall executive
function back to the head injury from the fall. Her claim was
that the head injury has severely impacted her prospects for future
employment and her ability to carry out her normal activities
of daily function. Common with many individuals who have suffered
moderate head injuries , Ms . Brown’s family and friends
perceived that she changed as a result of the fall. Her personality
and outlook had changed as a result of the frustration and anxiety
that accompanies the struggles she faced to complete even simple
tasks that she had previously taken for granted. Ms. Brown participated
in cognitive rehabilitation at Truman Medical Center and has seen
some improvement, although it is uncertain whether or not she
will be able to return to a high level executive function that
she enjoyed prior to her injury.
|
