Trip and Fall Claim Leads to Payment of both Liability and Excess Policy Limits

LIKE MANY SUCCESS STORIES, THIS ONE STARTED WITH ANOTHER FIRM TRUSTING US TO HELP ITS CLIENT

A lot of our cases are referred by other attorneys.

In the last couple of months we’vre received referrals from attorneys who (variously):

• Are located out of state.

• Don't focus on personal injury cases.

• Don't handle cases that need to be litigated.

• Don't want to try or arbitrate cases in which they've filed suit.

These attorneys were situated quite differently. The common denominator was that they trusted us to help their clients.

One of these referrals was from a very prominent BC firm. One of its clients ("Susan") had fallen. The statute of limitations was nearing.

THE FALL

Susan had been walking with friends. They were unfamiliar with the area and did not know that some of the street trees had been removed. The hole--where the tree used to emerge from the tree grate--was obscured by shadows.

Susan tripped and fell after stepping into the unguarded hole. She hit the pavement with her hands, face and head.

Susan broke her nose and fractured her elbow. She also suffered a mTBI.

The mTBI prevented her from returning full time to work as a nurse. Part-time opportunities were few and far between. Especially for someone over 60.

WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE

Sidewalks are used by the whole gamut of society. Children, adults, elderly people. People with physical limitations. People who are blind or visually impaired.

Sidewalks are part of a built and highly regulated environment. There are stringent safety requirements. When walking on a sidewalk in an urban environment users expect it to be smooth and free from hazards. It’s not like walking along the Pacific Crest Trail where there are likely to be stones, roots and other trip hazards.

The safety hierarchy, or hazard control hierarchy, is a priority scheme for dealing with hazards.

It is often referred to as the design, guard and warn sequence.

In order of preference, alternative designs that eliminate or reduce the hazard should be given first consideration.

Where alternative designs are not feasible, guarding is the next preferred approach. Guarding can be viewed as an effort to prevent contact between users and the hazard.

Warnings are the third line of defense. Warnings are intended to provide information needed to avoid hazards and use the product or area safely.

Here, there was no design, guarding or warning.

Safety fencing and barricades would have prevented Susan’s fall. But they were not used.

Even if the contractor thought it was too much work to erect safety fencing or barricades, it could have utilized a pedestrian trench plate.



They cost $139.

SETTLEMENT

This was an unfortunate situation for everyone involved. Particularly Susan.

What made it so unfortunate was not just Susan's career-ending injuries, but also the fact that it could have been avoided for $139 or less.

We sent a demand for the contractor's policy limits and filed suit.

Eventually the insurance carrier for the contractor agreed to pay both the primary liability and excess coverage policy limits to settle the case.

Hats off to the BC attorneys who referred Susan to our office!