 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Palmer v. Schindler Elevator Corp.3/28/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Cindra L. Palmer suffered injuries when an elevator in which she was riding in a high-rise office building suddenly dropped several floors and came to an abrupt halt. She brought suit against the building owner, Equitable Real Estate and Investment Management, Inc. (Equitable), the building management company, Compass Management & Leasing , Inc. (Compass) and the elevator company, Schindler Elevator Corporation (Schindler). After a lengthy trial the jury awarded Palmer $5.75 million in economic and non-economic damages. The defendants have appealed, contending the jury verdict was inconsistent and the trial court made prejudicial evidentiary errors. Palmer has cross-appealed, contending the trial court erred in refusing to award her enhanced costs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 998 and prejudgment interest pursuant to Civil Code section 3291. We affirm the judgment in all respects.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On August 22, 1995 Palmer was working as a litigation secretary for a Los Angeles law firm with offices on the 31st floor of a high-rise building owned by Equitable and managed by Compass. She entered the elevator to go to lunch, and the elevator suddenly malfunctioned -- increasing its speed until it came to a sudden stop on the eighth floor. Palmer was thrown to the floor of the elevator and suffered injuries including multiple fractures to her arm and leg. She was trapped in the elevator alone for a considerable time while building personnel attempted to free her. In the course of rescue operations the elevator dropped again, from the eighth floor to the fifth floor.
After several operations and 10 months of recovery, Palmer returned to work at the law firm. However, she had problems performing at the level expected of her as secretary to a busy litigation partner. Her concentration was impaired, and she was no longer able to accomplish tasks she had once performed with ease. After 18 months the law firm concluded her performance was not adequate and terminated her employment.
Palmer filed suit against Equitable, Compass and Schindler. She sought damages not only for her fractured arm and leg, but also for a closed-head brain injury, which her expert witnesses testified left her with cognitive defects and post-traumatic stress disorder.
After a month-long trial the jury returned a special verdict finding all three defendants had been negligent. In response to the question "Was the negligence of any defendant a cause of injury to Plaintiff," the jury answered "yes" as to the property manager and the elevator company, but "no" as to the building owner. When asked to apportion the fault for Palmer's injuries, the jury assigned 5 percent fault to the property owner, 10 percent to the property manager, and 85 percent to the elevator company.
Following a discussion in chambers, the parties agreed the building owner was entitled to judgment in its favor and stipulated the jury would be sent back to reconsider only the issue of apportionment of fault. The jury then returned a verdict apportioning 90 percent of the fault to the maintenance company and 10 percent to the property manager.
This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
1. The Jury's Verdict Was Not Inconsistent
Defendants contend the jury's verdict is
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|