Hatch door to roof of shopping mall injures lighting technician. $12.6M. Los Angeles County.

Facts and Background

• Facts and Background:

  Defendant MAS Realty was the owner of Arlington Plaza, a strip mall in Riverside. MAS had hired defendant Athena Management, Inc. to manage the property. In August 2014, defendants asked The Roof Depot, Inc. to inspect all the rooftops at Arlington Plaza. In a report sent to defendant Athena on September 9, 2014, Roof Depot noted that the hatch door leading to the rooftop of one of the buildings called “Pad A” was broken, and the spring was missing, making the door “heavy and dangerous to operate.” Roof Depot recommended repairing the entire hatch door for $3,150. Defendant Athena acknowledged the email, and included the hatch door repair for the December 2015 budget. However, the door was not repaired in December 2015 and the repairs were rescheduled for December 2016.

  Plaintiff was a lighting technician assigned to check the exterior lights of Arlington Plaza. On August 10, 2016, plaintiff needed to access the rooftop of Pad A in order to check the photocells on the roof. Plaintiff proceeded to climb the ladder to the roof, push the hatch door open, and maneuver the locking lever into position. However, while he was in the process of exiting the hatch door, his toolbelt caught on the hatch door's locking lever, causing the door to slam onto his back. Plaintiff was able to re-open the hatch door, and upon examination, realized that the door was missing a spring assist, so that the door was able to slam down as opposed to gently dropping.

  Plaintiff continued to work for a few hours before having to go to the doctor as the pain and numbness continued in his extremities and back. Ultimately, plaintiff underwent two spinal fusion surgeries and has a recommendation for a shoulder surgery. Due to his condition, Dr. Mobin has indicated plaintiff will need future surgeries at the adjacent levels in his spine. As a result of his injuries, plaintiff could not return to work in the same capacity, and ultimately stopped working completely in October 2016. Plaintiff needed to move into his parents’ home because he was unable to pay his rent

• Plaintiff's Contentions:

  This case proceeded under an exception to the Privette Doctrine based on the case Kinsman v. Unocal Corp. Under this exception, the owner/controller of a premises may be held liable for injuries to an independent contractor’s employee if (1) the owner/controller knew or reasonably should have known of a concealed dangerous condition on the property; (2) the independent contractor could not have known or reasonably could not have known about the condition; (3) the owner/controller failed to warn the independent contractor of the condition; (4) the employee was harmed; and (5) the conduct of the owner/controller was a substantial factor in causing the employee’s harm.

  Plaintiff alleged that he could not know the hatch door was going to fall on him until the incident occurred, and therefore defendants were in the best position to correct the dangerous condition, as they had been on notice of its existence nearly two years prior to the incident.

• Defendant's Contentions:

  Defendants maintained throughout litigation that the hatch door was not dangerous, and that they did not know that the hatch was broken, despite the September 9, 2014 email.

  Defendants also maintained that they were not responsible for the incident, and instead alleged that plaintiff, his employer, and The Roof Depot were at fault. Defendants also argued that they did warn plaintiff and his employer of the dangerous condition, as there was a handwritten note on the wall behind the ladder that read “Hatch broken! Watch fingers and head ☹”

  Defendants also alleged that plaintiff caused the incident himself because it was his toolbelt that dislodged the locking lever. Defendants also pointed to a typed statement by plaintiff after the incident that stated he acknowledged the spring was broken as he lifted the hatch door up initially.

  Defendants disputed the nature and extent of plaintiff’s injuries. Defendants’ billing expert cut down plaintiff’s medical bills by two-thirds, from approximately $606,000 to $200,000. In addition, defendants’ vocational rehabilitation expert suggested plaintiff could return to work in a position that was better than the one he had left, and that he could make more money, thereby suffering from no future lost earnings. In opening and closing, defendants asked for a full defense verdict.