Trial testimony indicated that Ames was not informed of the substitution of the sub-contractor until long after the Plaintiff fell. There was conflicting testimony which indicated that there may have been personnel from the defendant on the premises at the time of the Plaintiff’s fall, notwithstanding its suggestions to the contrary. The washing of floors at the premises was to be commenced after sales personnel had left the store after it closed. Testimony reflected that the washing of the floors commenced prior to the time when store personnel had left the premises. Evidence also proved that the rules and regulations of the defendant required the placing of signs which warned persons of wet floors when the floor washing was conducted. There were no such signs in the area of the premises where the Plaintiff fell as she left after the store closed to the public on the night of February 26, 1992.
The plaintiff, who earned less than $ 175.00 per week was diagnosed with a fractured foot which led to an altered gait causing low back pain. Her orthopedic surgeon testified that all of her impairments were caused by this fall, and not her advanced age.
The jury delivered a verdict, with interest, of slightly more than $ 278,000.00. The Plaintiff offered to settle the case for $ 2,000.00 less than the verdict as this allowed her a greater recovery than the actual higher verdict as the workers’ compensation insurer would have be entitled to interest on the verdict, but was only entitled to the lien without interest with respect to the settlement.
Related Massachusetts Workers’ Compensation Articles
Speak with a Workers’ Compensation Lawyer
To speak with a highly experienced workers’ compensation lawyer, click here, or telephone Parker Scheer LLP seven days a week, toll free at 886-414-0400. There is no fee charged to discuss your case, and all information furnished will be kept strictly confidential.