Pin It

1.3 Million Providence Superior Court Verdict for Slip and Fall Injury Victim at RI Hospital

The Providence Journal reported that A Providence Rhode Island Superior Court Jury Awarded a factory worker a 1.3 Million verdict against Rhode Island Hospital as a result of a slip and fall at at Hasbro Childrens Hospital. The Plaintiff alleged that she was permanently disabled as a result of a fractured knee cap caused by a fall after leaving an elavator at the Hospital.

The Injured victims’ Personal injury attorney alleged that the medical facility was negligent because the hospital washed the floors but failed to put up signs warning the accident victim that the floor was slippery.

The Insurance Company’s  Premises Liabiilty Defense Lawyers claimed they would seek a new trial to overturn the Jury verdict

Recently in Habershaw v. Michaels Stores, Inc. The Rhode Island Supreme Court Court decided that a mere allegation that a floor was shiny was not enough to establish negligence on the part of the store absent proof that there was a substance such as wax, water, polish etc. on the floor. 

$1.3 million judgment against R.I. Hospital in slip and fall case

“A premises liability claim typically involves the real estate owners or occupants failure to properly maintain the premises in a safe manner. It can also involve failure to fix an unreasonably dangerous conditions on the property of which they either knew or should have known about.The area of premises liability is not just limited to slip and fall but also includes: asbestos exposure, mesothelioma, lead paint exposure, dog bites, Inadequate security measures enabling assaults, Sidewalk or roadway defects, Poorly lit stair cases, falling debris, falling merchandise, or hanging hazards, carbon monoxide leaks, iced entrance ways, slippery or obstructed floors, electric shock due to exposed electric wiring.”

The Supreme Court of Rhode Island (RI) stated “[A] landowner has a duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety of persons reasonably expected to be on the premises, and that duty includes an obligation to protect against the risks of a dangerous condition existing on the premises, provided the landowner knows of, or by the exercise of reasonable care would have discovered, the dangerous condition. The burden of proving that sufficient evidence existed to show that the defendants knew or should have known of an unsafe condition on their premises is on the plaintiff.”  Lieberman v.  Bliss-Doris Realty Associates 

Tags: ,

Comments are closed.