Published on:

Slip and Fall in Building Lobby Settles for $2.75 Million

A slip and fall case in the lobby of a woman’s office building resulted in a total settlement of $2.75 million. Litigation of the case revealed that the woman’s slip and fall was the sixth one to occur over the past four years and that the building landlord was well-aware of the problems of the slippery lobby floor. As a result of the fall, the woman suffered an actue ankle sprain that was later determined to actually consist of damaged ligaments and a questionable fracture of the ankle bone.

The woman’s injuries worsened over time. After the woman suffered from severe pain for a prolonged period, she was diagnosed with RSD (reflex sympathetic dystrophy), which has recently been called CPRS (complex regional pain syndrome) by the medical profession. In an attempt to treat her RSD, the woman had a surgery to her ankle and then had a stimulator implanted in the ankle to attempt to interrupt the nerves that send pain signals to the brain. Unfortunately, the woman said that the stimulator wasn’t helping and that she continues to suffer from constant and severe pain. The injuries from the accident prevented the woman from working and had the same effect on her leg as if part of it had been amputated, except that an amputation would not have resulted the severe and constant pain the woman continues to experience.

The law suit filed by the woman alleged that the floor of the entrance to her office building was known to be slippery and wet in bad weather from the large number of people entering the building. The woman sued the company that provided facility management for the building, the company that provided janitorial services for the building, and the company that provided and placed floor mats in the building every other week. Settlement with the two of the three companies was reached during a mediation of the case (meeting with all of the parties to the lawsuit and an unbiased lawyer who discusses the case with the parties and their lawyers in an attempt to reach a compromise on the case), while the third defendant settled near the eve of trial.

Contact Information