Contractor's employee falls down hill while inspecting property with defendant.
The Case
- Case Name: Adela M. Haro v. Jason Ellis, et al.
- Court and Case Number: Los Angeles Superior Court / 24NNCV00888
- Date of Verdict or Judgment: Thursday, May 28, 2026
- Date Action was Filed: Thursday, April 11, 2024
- Type of Case: Negligence, Premises Liability
- Judge or Arbitrator(s): Hon. Sarah J. Heidel
- Plaintiffs:
Adela M. Haro
- Defendants:
Thomas O. EllisEllis Family Trust
- Type of Result: Jury Verdict
The Result
- Gross Verdict or Award: Defense verdict. Defendant was negligent but that negligence was not a substantial cause of plaintiff's injury.
- Jury Polls: 11-1
The Attorneys
- Attorney for the Plaintiff:
Richard G. Flanagan, Attorney at Law, with Justin Hart, Burbank.
- Attorney for the Defendant:
KJG Trial Lawyers, APC by Kevin J. Grochow and Carol R. Rugh, Aliso Viejo.
Facts and Background
- Facts and Background:
Plaintiff, a 77-year-old woman, was on the defendants' residential property in Tujunga on May 1, 2022 to inspect the property for the purpose of providing defendant with an estimate for brush clearance by a brush clearance contractor. The residential property is located in an area classified by the City of Los Angeles as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, and defendant is required by the City of Los Angeles to conduct brush clearance and comply with annual inspections by the City. The property to be inspected by plaintiff had hills and was undeveloped brushland. Defendant and plaintiff walked the property so that plaintiff could complete her inspection of the size of the property and the amount of vegetation. Defendant led as plaintiff walked behind.
At the top of the hill, plaintiff's view of the brush and vegetation was obscured from their vantage point. Plaintiff told defendant she had to inspect the entire property in order to provide an accurate estimate.because that was her job. Defendant led plaintiff down the hill to get a closer look.
Defendant and plaintiff walked the property for an estimated 45 minutes while defendant led and plaintiff followed. When defendant and plaintiff were walking back up the hill, plaintiff fell and rolled/slid 50-60 feet down the hill and sustained injuries.
- Plaintiff's Contentions:
Plaintiff claimed that defendant had offered and taken her hand to help her up the hill, but unexpectedly let go of her, causing her to fall. Plaintiff also claimed that the property was in a dangerous condition due to its steep terrain and was in an unsafe condition for invitees like plaintiff.
- Defendant's Contentions:
Defendant denied ever offering his hand to plaintiff and denied ever touching plaintiff as the two walked the property for her inspection. Defendant also claimed the condition of the property was open and obvious, and that as a professional in the brush clearance industry plaintiff assumed the risk.
Injuries and Other Damages
- Physical Injuries claimed by Plaintiff:
TBI and significant orthopedic injuries
Special Damages
- Special Damages Claimed - Past Medical: $220,000
- Special Damages Claimed - Future Medical: $200,000
- Special Damages Claimed - Past Lost Earnings: $160,000
- Special Damages Claimed - Future Lost Earnings: $120,000
Demands and Offers
- Plaintiff Final Demand before Trial: $1,500,000
- Defendant Final Offer before Trial: $100,000
Additional Notes
Plaintiffs requested $2.5 million from the jury. Jury came back 11-1 with a defense verdict on both causes of action for negligence and premises liability.
Per plaintiff's counsel:
The jury unanimously found that defendant was negligent and that he was negligent in maintaining his property. However, the jury decided 11-1 on both issues that his negligent behavior was not the cause of plaintiff's injuries.