FF PLLC had a nice win of summary judgment in this case, in which a 43 year old, fragile (eggshell skull) plaintiff sustained multiple serious injuries, including fracture of the left hip with open reduction internal fixation, post-operative lightheadedness and irregular heartbeat, fractured left distal radius and ulna styloid (wrist), intense stomach pain and stomach ulcer due to medications and alleged permanent scarring, disfigurement and deformity, when, on October 27, 2012, Halloween, he fell from a loading dock in defendant’s building.
Plaintiff and other party-goers, invited by the co-defendant, were playing a menacing game of investigation in which partygoers dressed as zombies purposely turned off the lights and spooked each other, including plaintiff, on the loading dock of defendant’s building.
Plaintiff and other party-goers, invited by the co-defendant, were playing a menacing game of investigation in which partygoers dressed as zombies purposely turned off the lights and spooked each other, including plaintiff, on the loading dock of defendant’s building.
Plaintiff alleged (and argued in opposition to our motion) that the loading dock was poorly illuminated and unguarded and that co-defendant party giver and the defendant building owner knew that Halloween parties in the building took place on the loading dock. Plaintiff claimed that the owner, knowing that parties took place there, should have somehow barred entry to the loading dock.
We argued the loading dock was not in violation of any codes, was well lit 24/7 and adequately maintained. Three witnesses testified that there was a sign on the door of the loading dock, which is in a photograph attached to the moving papers. All the witnesses, including plaintiff, testified that the light had been intentionally turned out for their game (since they wanted it dark), but they were able to see. Plaintiff testified that he could see CR, who was dressed up as a zombie, 5 feet in front of him. Plaintiff and all the witnesses testified that the game was completely voluntary. CR testified she scared the plaintiff and that’s what caused him to fall.
We submitted the affidavit of an expert attested that the loading dock was not in violation of any building codes. We also established that there were no prior accidents or complaints about parties or any defective conditions on or around the loading dock.
We argued that the defendant was not aware of and did not permit parties on the loading dock, although tenants had free access to the loading dock which was for loading and unloading of furniture, equipment and large items.
We argued that there is no negligence or negligent condition of the loading dock that caused plaintiff’s accident, that no guardrail was required, adequate lighting was provided at all times, although it was intentionally turned off, and that the sole cause of plaintiff’s accident was his participation in the zombie scaring game, his failure to observe his surroundings (everyone there knew and was able to see it was a loading dock) and that CRs’ intentional scaring of plaintiff cut off any causation between plaintiff’s claim of negligent premises and the accident or the injuries he sustained.
Judge Saitta agreed with our arguments. He ruled that we met our burden by demonstrating the loading dock was not hazardous and that the owner had no notice of a Halloween party in the loading dock area, the loading dock was adequately lit, and plaintiff failed to adduce evidence that the loading dock was unsafe or dangerous. In addition Judge Saitta ruled that no liability would be imposed on the landowner, where, as here, the injury is the result of the plaintiff’s voluntary activity, which was not supervised by the owner. Nor was it foreseeable that the loading dock would be used for parties.
Judge Saitta denied co-defendant’s motion insofar as the tenant party-giver knew of parties spilling over from his apartment to the loading dock and of the menacing games the partygoers played.
We argued the loading dock was not in violation of any codes, was well lit 24/7 and adequately maintained. Three witnesses testified that there was a sign on the door of the loading dock, which is in a photograph attached to the moving papers. All the witnesses, including plaintiff, testified that the light had been intentionally turned out for their game (since they wanted it dark), but they were able to see. Plaintiff testified that he could see CR, who was dressed up as a zombie, 5 feet in front of him. Plaintiff and all the witnesses testified that the game was completely voluntary. CR testified she scared the plaintiff and that’s what caused him to fall.
We submitted the affidavit of an expert attested that the loading dock was not in violation of any building codes. We also established that there were no prior accidents or complaints about parties or any defective conditions on or around the loading dock.
We argued that the defendant was not aware of and did not permit parties on the loading dock, although tenants had free access to the loading dock which was for loading and unloading of furniture, equipment and large items.
We argued that there is no negligence or negligent condition of the loading dock that caused plaintiff’s accident, that no guardrail was required, adequate lighting was provided at all times, although it was intentionally turned off, and that the sole cause of plaintiff’s accident was his participation in the zombie scaring game, his failure to observe his surroundings (everyone there knew and was able to see it was a loading dock) and that CRs’ intentional scaring of plaintiff cut off any causation between plaintiff’s claim of negligent premises and the accident or the injuries he sustained.
Judge Saitta agreed with our arguments. He ruled that we met our burden by demonstrating the loading dock was not hazardous and that the owner had no notice of a Halloween party in the loading dock area, the loading dock was adequately lit, and plaintiff failed to adduce evidence that the loading dock was unsafe or dangerous. In addition Judge Saitta ruled that no liability would be imposed on the landowner, where, as here, the injury is the result of the plaintiff’s voluntary activity, which was not supervised by the owner. Nor was it foreseeable that the loading dock would be used for parties.
Judge Saitta denied co-defendant’s motion insofar as the tenant party-giver knew of parties spilling over from his apartment to the loading dock and of the menacing games the partygoers played.