Tag Archive for: lisa-angelo

Murchison & Cumming Elevates Lisa Angelo to Senior Partner

/in ,

Murchison & Cumming, LLP is pleased to announce that Partner and civil litigation trial specialist Lisa D. Angelo has been promoted to Senior Partner.

After earning her J.D. from Whittier Law School, and her LLM from George Washington University, Ms. Angelo began her legal career in Washington, D.C. where she worked on high profile complex civil-litigation matters and tried her first cases in several state and Federal courts on the East Coast. She returned to California and joined Murchison & Cumming, LLP as an Associate attorney in 2008.

Over the course of the past 15-years with M&C, Ms. Angelo has successfully represented her retail, non-profit business and professional clients, securing multiple defense trial verdicts and dispositive motion outcomes. She is a Martindale Hubbell AV-Preeminent rated attorney and a member of several esteemed legal organizations where she speaks on various topics including mentoring, malpractice and navigating settlement demands.

“We are very proud to welcome Lisa as a Senior Partner at Murchison & Cumming,” said Managing Partner Dan L. Longo. “Over her time at the firm, Lisa has exhibited the litigation skills, leadership, and ability to work with others that will make her an outstanding Senior Partner.”

Ms. Angelo’s core mission throughout her 20-year legal career has been to pay it forward as her mentors did for her. “It is an honor to join the firm’s leadership as a Senior Partner,” said Ms. Angelo. “I am excited to take this next step and to being a permanent part of the firm’s future. I am mindful of what brought me to this pinnacle—relationships, communication and connection. I am grateful for the foundation upon which my career was built, including my family, my M&C family, and to a particular college professor who helped convince me that the law was my destined path. I look forward to this next step in my journey with the firm that began as a receptionist and morphed into Senior Partnership.”

Motion of Summary Judgment Granted in Trip and Fall Case

/in

A motion for summary judgment was granted by Judge James L. Crandall from the Orange County Superior court in favor of Defendant’s Gym located in Fullerton, California in a premises liability case. Lisa D. Angelo, Scott J. Loeding, and Katie M. Trinh of Murchison & Cumming, LLP represented defendant.

Plaintiff was a member of a local gym in Fullerton, California. When she initially became a member, she signed an agreement which included a Waiver and Release of Liability as well as Indemnity Agreement. On October 16, 2019 at approximately 6:30 in the morning, plaintiff walked into the lobby of the gym and tripped over a yellow wet floor caution sign. The sign had been placed on the floor by a janitor after he mopped the floor in the morning. Plaintiff sustained personal injuries including a upper humerus fracture on the right side. Plaintiff claimed damages in the low six figure range. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on grounds the waiver and release of liability provision contained in the gym membership agreement barred her claims against the gym.

On August 3, 2022, Judge James L. Crandall from the Orange County Superior Court granted defendant’s motion and found plaintiff waived her rights to sue for personal injuries when she signed her membership agreement, which included the liability waiver. The court further held that even though plaintiff spoke a different language, claimed to not understand the agreement or know what she was signing, that did not bar enforcement of the agreement.

On November 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion for New Trial pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 657 and on grounds the court’s order granting summary judgment was improperly issued because the court did not have a tentative ruling or Order noting the basis for the court’s ruling ahead of the hearing and/or because the ruling amounted to an error in law because a warning sign was excluded by the release as a known risk and because the evidence before the court on the MSJ was insufficient to justify the court’s decision.

On January 24, 2023, Judge Martha K. Gooding from the Orange County Superior Court denied Plaintiff’s motion on both grounds. First, the court found that a trial court need not have a detailed order reflecting his or her decision to grant an MSJ ahead of the hearing and there is nothing improper about adopting the reasoning recited in the moving party’s proposed order. Second, the court found that Defendant has shown with undisputed evidence that it was not negligent as a matter of law by having the wet floor caution sign displayed when plaintiff tripped over it.

In denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, the court effectively found in favor of Defendant for a second time and on a second ground—the merits. Thus, Defendant prevailed twice by way of moving papers, first based upon the waiver/release and second, based upon the fact that a wet floor sign does not constitute a dangerous condition.

Motion of Summary Judgement Granted in Slip and Fall Case

/in

A motion for summary judgment was granted in the Los Angeles Superior Court in a premises liability case. Lisa D. Angelo, Gregory G. Brezovec, and Scott J. Loeding of Murchison & Cumming, LLP represented defendant.

This case involved a customer slipping and falling upon liquid that was believed to have come from a cup that another customer was holding and drinking from. According to video surveillance, which was 11 minutes in length, the footage showed Plaintiff walking behind the customer with the cup and all of a sudden, falling to the ground after the customer with the cup drank from his cup. The Court found this evidence to be sufficient for Defendant to meet its initial burden as “the liquid likely was spilled six seconds prior to the incident when a man carrying a cup walked through the exact location.” In her opposition, Plaintiff failed to present additional evidence to show the liquid she slipped upon came from another source and/or that the liquid was on the floor before the man with the cup walked through the area where Plaintiff fell.

Motion for Summary Judgment in Elder Abuse Case

/in

A motion for summary judgment was granted in favor of Veterans Rideshare, a unique transportation company based in Southern California, serving greater Los Angeles and Orange counties. Lisa D. Angelo and Scott J. Loeding of Murchison & Cumming, LLP represented the defendant.

Judge Brazile from the Los Angeles Superior Court initially granted the MSA as to Elder Abuse and Unruh Act claims, then, three months later, granted the rest of the motion as to the wrongful death claim. After the plaintiff’s pathologist, who submitted a declaration in opposition to the motion on behalf of the plaintiff, was deposed. The court found no causation between the plaintiff’s fall and his subsequent death nearly a year later. The court also rejected the pathologist’s brain damage theory and his entire declaration.

Motion of Summary Judgement Granted in Slip and Fall Case

/in

A motion for summary judgment was granted by Federal Court Judge Dolly Gee in favor of a store owner in a premises liability case. Lisa D. Angelo and Scott J. Loeding of Murchison & Cumming, LLP represented the defendant.

The case concerned a slip and fall over alleged water that had been spilled on the floor. Video surveillance showed that in a separate room around the corner from where the fall took place the defendant’s employees were cleaning up something on the ground with towels and left a mound of towels on the floor. The court ruled that even if the defendant was negligent in one part of the store, that did not mean that they were negligent in the place where the plaintiff fell and there was no causal link between the plaintiff’s fall and the alleged spill of water leakage around the corner. Consequently the court granted a summary judgment in favor of the store owner.

Lisa Angelo’s Article Featured in PLDF Quarterly

/in

By: Lisa D. Angelo

PLDF Quarterly

View Link

It was the end of October 2020. Courts had been shut down since March due to the nationwide COVID-19 pandemic. Los Angeles County was allowing some in-person hearings but only preference trials were being considered for a jury— if they had previously been demanded, and if enough jurors were available. Orange County was open for trials at the Presiding Judge’s discretion. My real estate fraud case, which had been pending for four years, was called on Friday, October 23, 2020. Naturally, we believed our case would be continued since there was no major rush to go to trial, particularly during a pandemic. While my case had been on the docket for four years, there were other cases that had been pending for longer, or that had other issues that could have taken precedence over our case. Nonetheless, because we answered “ready” on March 13, 2020—the Friday before California’s Governor shut down the State on Monday, May 16, 2020—we were next in line for a jury trial when one of the large courtrooms typically used for complex cases became available. Much to our surprise, the court ordered the parties in our case to appear the following Monday, October 26, 2020, for trial and jury selection. So long as a criminal case did not need the jurors on Monday, the panel that was summoned to appear for jury duty would be sent to our courtroom and we would start our selection. Needless to say, I did not get much sleep that weekend.

Voir Dire, Jury Selection & The Socially Distant Courtroom

In my career, I have tried cases in federal and state criminal and civil courts, on both coasts and in-between, and I have seen all types of jury selection processes. Every court and every judge has its or her own way of handling this process…don’t they? This time, however, was very different.

Due to the pandemic, it was anticipated that more than the usual number of jurors would claim a “hardship” to get out of jury duty. Thus, in an effort to streamline voir dire, prospective jurors were given a “hardship questionnaire,” so they could be pre-qualified for jury service before voir dire began. Unfortunately, and as an unintended consequence, instead of streamlining jury selection, the questionnaire afforded prospective jurors with the opportunity to opt-out of jury duty for nearly any reason. Unlike the days when jurors were grilled on the particulars of their inability to “perform their civic duty,” this time, if a juror had so much as a sniffle, day care concerns, work concerns, or simply an ‘I don’t feel comfortable being here’ concern, the juror was free to leave if he or she signed a hardship questionnaire. After the panel began rapidly depleting, even before the voir dire actually started, it was decided that counsel would conduct preliminary voir dire of jurors who claimed hardship on their questionnaire. We also called down for a second panel of forty jurors for the next day so we could repeat the entire process. Jury selection ended up being the lengthiest process I had ever gone through for a civil non-complex trial. Eventually, we had a “pre-qualified” non-hardship panel of fifty to sixty jurors and the real voir dire process finally began.

Due to “social distancing,” we could only voir dire eighteen jurors at a time. The court’s clerk placed red tape on every fifth seat in the jury box and throughout the gallery so jurors would know where to sit and would remain at least six feet apart from each other at all times. The department had four long counsel tables between the well and the gallery. In the middle of the second row of counsel tables was an Elmo for exhibits. Only one attorney could sit at each six-foot long table. Since there were two attorneys for both sides, our clients (Plaintiff and Defendant) were not permitted to sit at counsel tables. More shocking, neither Plaintiff nor Defendant could sit in the courtroom and observe jury selection and voir dire because (as our judge reminded us every day) only a certain number of people could be together in the courtroom at all times. In other words, the seats our clients would have normally occupied had to go to a prospective juror instead during voir dire in order to accommodate eighteen jurors in the room along with counsel, the judge and courtroom staff. As we also soon realized, when nearing the end of our jury selection process, we could only have one alternate juror if we wanted to reserve the other two seats for our clients (Plaintiff and Defendant). If we had two or three alternates, our clients would have to watch the trial from a computer on the court’s live stream.

In order to make the courtroom “open to the public,” which it most certainly was not, the daily court sessions were “live streamed” on the court’s website for free. Before courtroom proceedings began each day, our judge placed a preliminary order on the record that went something along the lines as this:

…FOR TODAY’S PROCEEDINGS THE COURT IS AGAIN GOING TO MAKE THE FINDING THAT THERE IS AN OVERRIDING INTEREST IN LIMITING PARTICIPATION OF THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC DUE TO THE COVID-19 VIRUS. THIS OVERRIDING INTEREST REQUIRES THE COURT TO COMPLY WITH SOCIAL DISTANCING GUIDELINES. AS A RESULT OF COMPLYING WITH THE SOCIAL DISTANCING GUIDELINES, IT REQUIRES THE COURT TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO CAN PARTICIPATE IN THESE PROCEEDINGS FROM THE PUBLIC.

THE COURT HAS CONSIDERED OTHER ALTERNATIVES, SUCH AS, MAYBE MOVING TO ANOTHER COURTROOM TO ACCOMMODATE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO MAY HAVE AN INTEREST IN THIS CASE. THAT AT THIS STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS THE COURT WILL NOT MOVE TO A LARGER COURTROOM BECAUSE THE COURT HAS NOT HAD ANY INDICATION THAT MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WISH TO OBSERVE THE PROCEEDINGS IN THIS CASE.

FURTHER, THE COURT IS LIVE STREAMING THESE PROCEEDINGS. SO AS A RESULT OF THE LIVE STREAMING, THE COURT IS PROVIDING PUBLIC ACCESS. SO THE COURT WILL FIND THAT THE OVERRIDING INTEREST OF PUBLIC SAFETY OUTWEIGHS OR REQUIRES THE COURT TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS IN THE COURTROOM, AND CURRENTLY THE COURT DOES NOT HAVE AVAILABLE SEATS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

I’LL ASK THE COURT CLERK TO LET STAFF KNOW THAT THE COURT DOES NOT HAVE SEATS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC AND TO HAVE STAFF ADVISE THE COURT IF MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WISH TO VIEW THIS TRIAL IN PERSON. IF THE COURT GETS THAT INFORMATION, THE COURT WILL REVISIT THIS DECISION TODAY…

It was agreed that both sides would give “mini-openings” as opposed to the judge reading a “statement of the case” to the jurors. Because our courtroom was not our judge’s courtroom, and had been remodeled to accommodate for “social distancing,” we had to decide where to stand and how to present our arguments to the jury. Plaintiff’s counsel was tall, at least 6’1, so the jury was able to see him fairly well wherever he stood in the courtroom. Most of the time, he stood up at counsel’s table with his back to the judge. Since I was at least a foot shorter, my ability to see all the jurors and their ability to see me, was a little more challenging. I decided the best way to be seen and heard was to stand in the well, directly in front of the judge, but with my back to him. I asked for a podium, but alas, one could not be found until the second round of voir dire. For the first eighteen jurors, I spoke to them from two bankers boxes placed on top of counsel table. My notes were partially on the box and partially on a nearby table. In the past, I would have a jury consultant seated at counsel table during this process. Of course, with a limited number of people allowed in the courtroom, an in-person jury consultant was not possible.

We went through two packs of eighteen jurors before we used all our preemptory and cause challenges, so we had to repeat our mini-openings and voir-dire questions twice. Each time was great practice for our actual opening statement which would finally be able to go forward on the fourth day of trial and after three full days of jury selection.

Wearing Masks and Building a Relationship with the Jury

It did not take long before I learned that the best mask to wear during trial is a plain blue surgical mask. The material is thin, the sides are not too tight around the face and my voice could project better than if I wore a cloth mask. Two masks were certainly not an option if I wanted to be heard. I was grateful for my Lasik eye surgery, which still allowed me to not have to wear glasses so I did not have to worry about wearing my mask high up on my nose so that the eyeglasses did not fog up. While not very stylish, the blue surgical mask was also easier to breathe in and would not allow me to get hot throughout the course of the day. I never thought I would get used to wearing a mask all day, every day—but I did. I also learned very quickly that this trial was not going to be about style, comfort and charm. Rather, building a relationship with the jury I worked so hard to select, was going to be my biggest challenge. Incidentally, I did try to wear a face shield in lieu of a mask so the jury could see more of my face and expressions when I spoke. Unfortunately, my courthouse had a “no shield” and “mask only” policy.

As such, my goals each day were simply to be heard, be seen—in whole or in part—and get my client heard, seen and understood. With my client seated in the far back corner of the gallery, behind all the jurors, and my back to twothirds of the jury most of the time while I questioned witnesses each day, these goals were serious challenges. Even getting the testifying witness in the witness box seen and heard by jurors seated in the far corners of the courtroom was a challenge. After the first couple of witnesses testified, it was decided that a TV monitor would have to be set up for some of the jurors to get a closer look at the testifying witnesses. Indeed, “where to stand” was actually an ongoing issue throughout the course of the three-week trial. Being 5’1, I often wondered where my place in the courtroom should be in order to best be seen and heard and to not block the juror’s line of sight to the Judge or to the testifying witness in the witness box. Did I really want to stand by the Elmo with my back to two-thirds of the jury who were seated throughout the gallery as I questioned witnesses? For opening and closing arguments, was it better to stand in the well, with my back to the judge? If I stood there, at least everyone could see half my face behind my mask, I would not block the testifying witness and perhaps the jury could hear most of what I said…so long as spoke up, projected loud enough through my mask and kept it interesting. Of course, I was limited to where the microphones were stationed. One day I tried to ask questions of a witness while seated from counsel’s table, but I knew almost as soon as I started, that was the wrong thing to do. Alas, it was a little hit or miss the first few days.

The only jurors who consistently got to see the front-side of the trial attorneys were the three jurors who were lucky enough to get a seat inside the jury box. Everyone else, typically saw the back of my neck and whatever color jacket I wore each day. For these reasons, I wore neutral colors, nothing flashy, I had my hair pulled up, away from my face and attempted to appear the exact same way, every day, for all three weeks. The process was exhausting, but I did not want to distract the jury from anything other than the evidence and testimony that was being presented each day. If two-thirds of the jury could not see me, I did not think it was fair for the three jurors in the box who had the best view of everyone, to see something the others could not.

Incidentally, there was no such thing as a “sidebar,” or “may we approach” to discuss a particular objection or document outside earshot of the jury due to social distancing. If the judge had to talk to counsel outside the presence of the jury, the entire jury had to leave the courtroom and wait in the hallway. Needless to say, objections, legal argument over exhibits, questions were minimal as we did not want to annoy the jury.

Trying a Case in the Dark

When asked how it is to try a case in a mask to a jury that is also masked and scattered about a large courtroom, I analogize it to trying a case in the dark. In retrospect, I wonder if this is the better way to try a case to a jury?

Instead of focusing on whether a juror’s smile meant something, whether good or bad, all I could focus on was the evidence that I planned to get admitted each day, the testimony I planned to elicit and how I could possibly get my message across without knowing whether people liked it or not. Trying to guess what the jury was thinking, whether it liked my expert, whether it liked me or my client, was hopeless. One day, I was cross-examining a witness and I told (what I believed) was a pretty good off-the-cuff joke. All I heard in response to my effort was radio silence. Did the jury laugh? If it did, I could not hear the jurors. Did the jury not laugh at all because I lost the jurors and did not know it? Did the jurors smile, but I could not see their smile because they were behind me or because they were masked? And what about body language? I could not count on body language because everyone was, for the most part, uncomfortable. Indeed, wearing a mask all day is not comfortable. The seats in the courtroom were not comfortable. (One juror even brought in a seat cushion after the first week.) The temperature in the courtroom was not always comfortable either.

After the verdict was read and we went to talk to some of the jurors who waited for us in the hallway, I learned that in fact…they had laughed at my joke during the trial, I just did not hear them. I also learned that despite the fact that they could not see my client every day, they did like her…a lot. One juror became emotional as she talked to my client—the Defendant—who had wrongly stood accused of fraud for four years.

So, what can I offer about having tried a case during the middle of a nationwide pandemic? Not much more than I could offer when talking about any other case. Every trial has its punches that we have to roll with, doesn’t it? Whether it is a judge who has particular rules or styles we are not used to, a witness that turns on us, or we have to figure out how to fix a mess on the spot. Or a smiling juror who can be smiling because she hates us, or is smiling because she loves us. At the end of the day, each trial is like trying a case in the dark—we just may not realize it. But not being able to second guess yourself and remaining completely oblivious as to whether something we did each day worked or did not work— does that ha

Motion for Summary Judgment Granted in Breach of Contract Case

/in

A motion for summary judgment was granted in favor of Community Action of Ventura Inc. (“Community Action”), a nonprofit organization assisting low income individuals to weatherize their residences to be more energy efficient. Lisa D. Angelo and Christy Gargalis of Murchison & Cumming, LLP represented the defendant.

In 2015, Community Action assisted homeowners in Oxnard, CA to replace two windows in their home. About six months after the window installation and a heavy rainfall, one of windows leaked and damaged hardwood flooring in the room where the window was installed. Community Action agreed to hire the plaintiff Jose F. Garcia to repair the flooring and walls in the area where the energy efficient window leaked.

After Garcia began work, he and the homeowners agreed to expand the scope of the repairs to include much more than what was identified in the original estimate including new hardwood flooring throughout the home. Both Garcia and the homeowners believed Community Action would pay for the additional work because a non-managerial employee from Community Action occasionally came to the property to check on the progress of the work. About a month after completing the work, Garcia submitted a final invoice to Community Action. Because Community Action had not agreed to pay for any work beyond what was submitted in Garcia’s original estimate, Community Action refused to pay Garcia’s second invoice. Garcia sued Community Action for (1) Breach of Contract; (2) quantum meruit; (3) work, labor and material; (4) work, labor and services; and, (5) unjust enrichment

After two years of litigation, Community Action filed a motion for summary judgment as to all of Garcia’s claims. After a hearing on the motion, the court held that Garcia’s breach of contract claim failed because the only viable contract that was entered into by the parties was for limited repairs to the floor by the leaking window and Community Action was not liable for additional costs to which it did not agree. The court further held that because Community Action established that the employee who occasionally visited the home to observe the status of Garcia’s work was a non-managerial employee, he lacked actual or ostensible authority to bind Community Action to authorize the expansion of Garcia’s work at the property. As to the remaining causes of action, the Court found that because Community Action did not own the subject property, it did not obtain any benefit from the additional work Garcia performed at the property.

Defense Verdict in Alleged Real Estate Fraud Case

/in

On November 12, 2020, a fully masked Orange County jury, which was seated about the courtroom, including the gallery, returned a Defense Verdict in favor of Rajeswari Vunnamadala. Murchison & Cumming, LLP Partner Lisa D. Angelo tried the case. Senior Associate Darin W. Flagg provided law and motion assistance and Associate Vedang J. Patel provided trial assistance over the course of the three-week trial.

The plaintiff Hymavathi Kunamneni sued Vunnamadala, her former best friend of 34 years, for Intentional Misrepresentation, Negligent Misrepresentation, Constructive Fraud and Breach of Fiduciary Duty in connection with Kunamneni’s belief that Vunnamadala caused her to make bad investment decisions and in so doing, Vunnamadala accepted large sums of money from Kunamneni to finalize her property purchases for her in India. Vunnamadala vehemently denied each and every allegation set forth by Kunamneni.

The unique case concerned the sale of three lots of land in India. In addition to being Plaintiff’s best friend, Vunnamadala was a licensed real estate agent in Orange County who had previously worked as the plaintiff’s agent and helped her buy and sell real estate in Orange County in the early 2000s. Vunnamadala denied working as Kunamneni’s agent or helping her buy any of the Indian properties she now regrets purchasing between 2008 and 2011. In 2015, Kunamneni began to voice regret and concern about the value of her properties and started to accuse Vunnamadala of tricking her into making bad investment decisions in India. Kunamneni also began to threaten Vunnamadala and bad mouthed Vunnamadala in India as well as in Orange County.

Defense real estate expert Alan Wallace, Esq. testified that in the absence of an agency relationship between the parties, there can be no breach of fiduciary duty. To establish an agency relationship there had to be an express written agreement between the parties or conduct that implied an agency relationship existed. Because there was no evidence of an express written agreement after 2003 (when Vunnamadala was Kunamneni’s real estate agent in Orange County, CA) and the conduct of the parties did not establish consent to enter into an agency relationship, no agency existed between Kunamneni and Vunnamadala for any of Kunamneni’s Indian property purchases. Wallace also observed there was no evidence of any commission earned by Vunnamadala in exchange for working as Kunamneni’s agent in India. This further showed the parties did not have an agent/client agreement between them. Defense Indian law and Indian real estate expert Monisha Coelho further explained that none of the Indian real estate documents produced at trial showed that Vunnamadala was Kunamneni’s agent and simple acts such as going to India’s registration office to drop off and pick up real estate documents for Kunamneni did not create an agency relationship between the parties.

After a three-week trial, the jury took less than three hours to find Defendant Vunnamadala not liable for any of the fraud-based claims Kunamneni alleged including her claim for punitive damages.

Motion for Summary Judgment Granted in Products Liability Case

/in

Judge Curtis A. Kin of the Los Angeles County Superior Court granted a motion for summary judgment in a products liability case against Mountville Mills, Inc. (MMI), a floor mat manufacturer. The motion was prepared and argued by Matthew E. Voss and the handling attorney for this matter was Lisa D. Angelo.

MMI is a manufacturer of floor mats used in the restaurant industry and other businesses across the U.S. The plaintiff had purportedly sustained serious physical injuries after a trip and fall accident at the entrance of a restaurant in Pasadena, California involving a mat manufactured by MMI. She alleged causes of action against MMI for: 1) Products Liability; 2) Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness; and 3) Negligence.

The Court found that the plaintiff had failed to raise any triable issues of material fact and submit evidence showing a defect in the mat, or conduct constituting a breach of warranty or breach of duty by MMI. Thus, the plaintiff could not establish her causes of action against MMI. The Court found the declaration of the plaintiff’s expert, Brad Avrit, submitted in opposition to the motion, unpersuasive because Avrit did not test the mat, request a sample mat for testing, inspect the accident site, and his opinions were not based upon personal knowledge.

Defense Verdict in Premises Liability Case

/in

A Long Beach jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, a local restaurant from Avalon, California. Murchison & Cumming Partner Lisa D. Angelo represented the restaurant in a five-day trial where plaintiff asked the jury to award her $5 million dollars.

The plaintiff fell upon a curb on the corner of Third St. and Catalina Ave. in the City of Avalon. Video surveillance from the defendant’s restaurant captured the fall. As a result of her fall, the plaintiff claimed she suffered a sciatic nerve injury to her back that required her to undergo physical therapy and two epidural injections. Her future medical damages claims included a spinal cord stimulator along with a battery pack that had to be replaced every five to seven years. According to the plaintiff’s medical expert, the cost of the stimulator and battery pack alone was $350,000.

At trial, the plaintiff testified that she fell as a result of “slime and sludge” that came from a roof drain pipe attached to defendant’s restaurant. Evidence at trial showed that defendant’s air conditioning unit, located on the restaurant’s roof, leaked water condensation that traveled from the unit, across the roof, down a roof drain and onto the City of Avalon’s sidewalk. The restaurant’s owner testified that he routinely changes the filter on the air conditioning unit and that it was properly maintained at all times.

The plaintiff’s liability expert, Brad Avrit, testified that the air conditioner’s water condensation picked up “contaminants” as it traveled across the roof and down the drain pipe to the City sidewalk. Mr. Avrit further opined that the “contaminants,” while resting on the City sidewalk, turned into an liquid substance that caused plaintiff to slip and fall. The only evidence the plaintiff produced to support her expert’s “contamination” theory was her own testimony, the video surveillance and a nighttime photo that she believed showed “slime and sludge” on the concrete.

Defense liability expert, Ned Wolfe, testified that the plaintiff fell as the result of a misstep. Having turned the video surveillance into still-shots, Mr. Wolfe effectively showed the jury that the plaintiff’s torso pitched forward at the time of her fall rather than backwards. These “body mechanics” demonstrate a “misstep” off the curb and not a slip upon slime, sludge or any other “contaminant.”

Both liability experts agreed: water on concrete does not create a slippery or dangerous condition.

The jury returned a 11-1 defense verdict in less than two hours after a five day jury trial. The jury answered “No” to the first question on the special verdict form as to whether Defendant was negligent. The case was tried before Judge Vicencia in the Long Beach Superior Court.