Skip to main content
Case:
Plaintiff, as Personal Representative of the Estate of  Plaintiff Decedent v. Defendant Retail Mall and Co-Defendant Driver
Practice Area:
Premise Liability; Wrongful Death
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
Eriksen Law Firm (Michael D. Eriksen); Crary Buchanan (David Knight)
Co-Defendant Counsel:
Sellars, Marion & Bachi, P.A. (Lauri A. Primus, Co-Defendant Counsel on behalf of Driver)
Result:
Complete Defense Verdict
Summary:
Defense Verdict | Decedent 62 Year Old | Wrongful Death Defendant Mall Parking Lot  
 
Founding Partner Jack D. Luks, Esq., and Senior Partner Allison I. Janowitz, Esq., obtained a full defense verdict on February 2, 2024 in a wrongful death action styled Plaintiff, as Personal Representative of the Estate of  Plaintiff Decedent v. Defendant Retail Mall and  Co-Defendant Driver. The lawsuit arose out of an accident that occurred on December 24, 2020 in the Defendant Retail Mall's parking lot. The decedent was severely injured when a vehicle made a left turn from the inner perimeter road into a parking aisle striking the decedent while he was walking across the parking aisle. Due to the injuries he sustained, the decedent did not regain consciousness and  passed away several days later.

Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant – our client – Mall negligently maintained its parking lot area and, as a result, was the direct cause of the incident. In arguments, Plaintiff attempted to establish liability based on failure to have additional crosswalks, stops signs and other safety traffic control devices in its parking lot. Nonetheless, in depositions, it was established that the Co-Defendant driver, was at a complete stop prior to making the left turn and was also familiar with the parking lot layout as he had been visiting the Mall since 1987. This key testimony aided in dismantling Plaintiff’s theory that the Mall was negligent in its design of its parking lot, which was the cause of the accident and injuries alleged.  The Mall argued that the inclusion of most of the traffic control devices recommended by the Plaintiff’s liability experts would not have altered the outcome of the accident.

Further, Defense expert, Roland Lamb, testified that based on his expertise and experience, the parking lot design was reasonable. Despite naming the driver as a Co-Defendant, Plaintiff's counsel continued to argue that the driver should not bear any responsibility for the accident and solely focused Plaintiff's case on the Mall as the responsible party.  Trial partners Jack D. Luks, and Allison I. Janowitz highlighted this fact coupled with their position that the Mall was not negligent in its parking lot design and/or it was not a legal cause of the accident.

Following closing arguments, the jury deliberated for two hours and returned a complete Defense verdict establishing that Defendant Mall and Co-Defendant driver were not the legal cause of loss or damage.