 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hildebrand v. Brod12/14/2004
Appellant-tenant challenges rulings by the trial court in this action for personal injuries she suffered when she tripped and fell on a stairway where there was no handrail. Because the trial court properly denied her motions for partial summary judgment on her claim of negligence per se and for a new trial based on the court's exclusion of expert testimony; admitted respondent-landlord's testimony regarding communications between the parties; and refused to give a negligence per se instruction, we affirm.
FACTS
Respondent-landlord Trent Brod decided to add a basement bedroom to his duplex and removed the stairwell handrail to the basement in preparation for painting the wall. He then leased the duplex to appellant Darnell Hildebrand and her husband and gave the Hildebrands possession of the duplex. When the Hildebrands moved in, the stairwell handrail to the basement was not in place. A few weeks later, appellant tripped and fell down the stairs when her sock caught on a protruding nail in the aluminum stair nosing.
Respondent testified that he began reinstalling the handrail in the presence of the Hildebrands and Mr. Hildebrand (1) asked that he not reinstall it so they could more easily move boxes into the unit; (2) stated that he had a drill to accomplish the task; and (3) took possession of the handrail. When respondent later visited the duplex to fix a blown circuit, he noticed the railing was not up and asked if they wanted him to reinstall it. He stated that they declined his offer because they were still moving in.
Mr. Hildebrand denies making any agreement to reinstall the handrail himself. Instead he testified it was their understanding that respondent would return to the unit to paint the wall and then reinstall the handrail. Mr. Hildebrand recalled that respondent came to repair the circuit, but claimed that occurred after his wife's fall. Mr. Hildebrand also testified that on several occasions he had renailed some of the aluminum stair nosing because the family's socks had caught on them.
In this action, appellant seeks medical costs and lost wages against respondent. After depositions of the parties were taken, appellant moved for partial summary judgment on the claim of negligence per se. The court denied the motion.
Appellant moved in limine to exclude, among other things, all testimony relating to (1) her husband having any responsibility for reattaching the handrail; (2) her or her husband having any responsibility regarding the nails securing the stair nosing; (3) respondent not being the responsible party; and (4) any negligence by her or her husband in the inspection of the premises. Respondent moved to exclude appellant's expert testimony. The trial court denied appellant's motion in limine and granted respondent's motion to exclude the expert testimony.
The jury returned a special verdict finding respondent 20% negligent, but not the direct cause of the fall, and the Hildebrands each 40% negligent and the direct cause of the fall. The trial court adopted the jury's findings, concluded that appellant's negligence exceeded that of respondent's, and dismissed the action. Appellant moved for a new trial, which the court denied, and then filed this appeal.
DECISION
I. Denial of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Motion in Limine
Appellant sought partial summary judgment "finding that [Respondent] was negligent, as a matter of law, in the maintenance of the subject premises" under Minn. Stat. ยง 504B.161 (2002). She argued that the landlord failed to maintain the premises in compliance with the building code requiring handrails in stairwells. The dis
Page 1 2 3 4 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|