Suzette worked for Frontier Bank. In December 2009, her employer instructed her to visit some local businesses that did their baking with Frontier Bank.
Suzette visited one such business, walked out, and headed next door to another business. Before she reached the next door Suzette found herself on the ground. She had seen no obstruction in her pathway, but had tripped over a wheel stop, hit her head on the door, broken her arm, and dislocated her elbow.
The wheel stop was the same color as the asphalt it was placed on, making it somewhat camouflaged.
Suzette sued North Kitsap Business Park, Inc.—the owner of the building.
Suzette’s expert—an architect—had extensive experience with construction management and planning, pre-purchase home inspections, and consulting for property owners, and maintained a working knowledge of building codes. Her expert opined that it would have been very difficult to perceive the wheel stop because it was not painted an offset color, the parking lot sloped slightly, and the top edge of the wheel stop was below the building’s siding, making it less visually prominent. The sun and shadows were also contributing factors. Considering these features he opined that someone unfamiliar with the property, behaving normally, would not have perceived the wheel stop under the conditions. It was his opinion that Suzette would have been less likely to expect to encounter a wheel stop because she had just exited the adjacent suite, which had no such wheel stop in front of its door.
The questions of code compliance was highly-contested. Suzette’s expert testified that use of a wheel stop in such a position was not compliant with the code because the code calls for curbs or “bumper rails.”
The trial court entered a judgment in favor of Suzette. North Kitsap appealed.
North Kitsap argued that the trial erred in allowing Suzette’s expert to testify, citing his qualifications. But, North Kitsap’s own expert, a professional engineer, testified that he was not an expert in pedestrian safety or human factors and admitted that he would defer questions of that nature to an architect.
The court of appeals found no error and upheld the judgment.
This victory for Suzette has hard fought, taking years of litigation involving experts on both sides and an appeal. Slip and fall cases are often among the most difficult personal injury cases. Contrary to commonly held belief, the building owner is not responsible because you were injured on their property. There is a lot more to it.
If you were injured on another’s property you should seek a free personal injury case evaluation with a lawyer as early as possible