Brooklyn, NY accident lawyer wins construction accident verdict

New York Personal Injury Attorney

Personal Injury Lawyer - 866ATTYLAW header image 2

Brooklyn, NY accident lawyer wins construction accident verdict

June 12th, 2010 · No Comments

MATSUR v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY
43943 / 2001
DATE OF INCIDENT: August, 2001
DATE OF FILING: October, 2002
DATE OF TRIAL: April, 2007
TOPIC:
LIABILITY:
General: PREMISES LIABILITY
Specific: Accident At Transit Station
SUMMARY
Outcome: Plaintiff Verdict
Non Verdict Award: $
Total Verdict: $2,800,000
Judge Reduced Award To: $
Claimed Past Medical: $
Claimed Future Medical: $
Claimed Past Wage Expense: $
Claimed Future Wage Expense: $
Plaintiff’s Economist: $
Defendant’s Economist: $
EXPERT-WITNESSES:
ATTORNEY:
Plaintiff: Arkady Frekhtman, Brooklyn, NY; Louis Mitchell trial counsel.
Defendant: Jeffrey S. Shein, Syosset, NY
JUDGE: David B. Vaughan
RANGE AMOUNT: $2,000,000 - 4,999,999
STATE: New York
COUNTY: Kings
PRIMARY INJURY: Mild Brain Injury
SUMMARY
PLAINTIFF:
Sex: Male
Age: 40
General Occupation: GENERAL LABORER
DECEDENT:
Funeral Expense: $
Other Expenses: $
DEFENDANT:
Type: Single Organization
Sex: Organization
Organization Type: TRANSPORTATION-COMMUTER TRAIN
Policy Limit: $
DAMAGES:
Past Medical: $
Future Medical: $
Past Wage: $
Future Wage: $
Pain and Suffering: $2,200,000
Other: $
Total: $2,200,000
Punitive: $
Hedonic: $
Property: $
Other: $
Interest: $
Loss of Services: $600,000
Loss of Services By: Spouse
FACTS:
A 40-year-old male alleged that he suffered a cerebral contusion, a cervical disc herniation, and a subdural hematoma when a temporary lighting box fell onto his head as he worked on a renovation project as an installer in the mezzanine area of the defendant’s subway station. The plaintiff contended that the defendant failed to properly hire, train and supervise its employees, failed to maintain the premises in a safe manner, and invoked the theory of res ipsa loquitur. The defendant denied liability and contended that there was no proof that it installed the lighting box or that, if it did, that the box was under its exclusive control. The plaintiff’s spouse filed a claim for loss of services and received $600,000.
LRP Publications
COURT:

Tags: Uncategorized

0 responses so far ↓

  • There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Leave a Comment