bullspen court case watchers

[smazza]

31 male 6 foot 2 .27 bac fell over balcony railing that was only 32 inches tall(our expert said 8 inches short) p doesnt remember what happened nor was there a witness as to what happened

he fell 2 stories sustained moderate brain injury

policies of insurance are 1 million primary;5 million excess

250k offer 6 million demand before trial

liability was tried first

conservative oc jury came back 85% liability against motel

d's offered policies of 6 mill;our demand is now 20 mill

damage portion of trial resumes monday

[smazza]

opps

i meant our demand is now 60

[Gismo]

Motel is liable? What about the party who specified the rail height? Was that also the motel?

[Triple B]

Motel is liable? What about the party who specified the rail height? Was that also the motel?

You'd think there would be some kind of Code for rail heights like that ...

[Apis Bull]

There is a code. Any surface more than 30" above the next surface must have a guardrail of at least 42" in height. This is the current code. I don't know what code the railing in question fell under.

[smazza]

Motel is liable? What about the party who specified the rail height? Was that also the motel?

you mean like architect? or contractor?

we dont know

in cali property owner is on the hook

motel didnt seek to blame anyone else so they must have signed off on it

good question

closing argument tomorrow

Edited July 16, 2012 by smazza

[gibbsak]

Motel is liable? What about the party who specified the rail height? Was that also the motel?

Specifier usually could only be liable if the railing was less than any code requirement when designed/constructed. Can't hold a specifier liable for future code changes. Also, if it was code deficient, what about the Building Inspector that issued the C.O.?

Were there any legal requirements to bring deficiencies up to code? I am not sure about railings and such but for electrical systems, usually only have to bring deficiencies up to current code if expanding.

[smazza]

Motel is liable? What about the party who specified the rail height? Was that also the motel?

Specifier usually could only be liable if the railing was less than any code requirement when designed/constructed. Can't hold a specifier liable for future code changes. Also, if it was code deficient, what about the Building Inspector that issued the C.O.?

Were there any legal requirements to bring deficiencies up to code? I am not sure about railings and such but for electrical systems, usually only have to bring deficiencies up to current code if expanding.

jury has been out 90 minutes

they resume deliberation at 9am

we asked for 70 mil

d atty said give p 2 mil

i have agood feeling but i usually have a good feeling

in california a purchaser of property had to bring railing up to current codes at time of purchase

when built many years ago it was up to code but code changed several times adding height

new owner is liable because they didnt bring up to code

[gibbsak]

in california a purchaser of property had to bring railing up to current codes at time of purchase

when built many years ago it was up to code but code changed several times adding height

new owner is liable because they didnt bring up to code

That makes sense.

However, while the property owner should have some liability for not bringing rails up to code, they can't control someone with a .27 BAC. Something like this could have happened even if the rails were up to code.

[GaUSFBull]

How does anyone know the drunk guy wasn't goofing off and decided to try to "tightrope-walk" the railing? Any non-biased, independent witnesses that saw what happened from beginning to end?

Edited July 18, 2012 by GaUSFBull