Skane Wilcox also has a specific practice in the representation of commercial, individual and public entity landowners. Our attorneys are well-versed in analyzing the issues involved in litigating premises liability cases. We provide a broad range of services including the litigation of construction site accidents and the defense of suits arising out of third party criminal acts perpetrated on the premises. Through the development of close relationships with our clients, we focus on preventing litigation through ongoing legal advice.
Some Results from our Attorneys
*** After two weeks of trial, our attorneys obtained a directed verdict in favor of our general contractor client in a multi-million dollar personal injury claim involving allegations of negligence and premises liability. The plaintiff, a prominent orthopedic surgeon, was allegedly injured in a fall in a darkened stairway at an apartment complex where our client was performing work. The plaintiff contended that our client’s work caused or contributed to the conditions which led to the fall. He sought damages that included, without limitation, past and future medical expenses and several million dollars in lost earning capacity. Skane Wilcox is currently seeking costs from the plaintiff.
*** In a premises liability action, our attorney prevailed on motion for summary judgment and fully extracted our client, a roofing contractor, from a case where both the plaintiff and a co-defendant were pursuing claims against our client. The plaintiff claimed serious injuries due to a ceramic roof tile allegedly striking him in the head. The plaintiff claimed the parties failed to repair a dangerous condition, and it was alleged our client either failed to inspect the roof properly and/or contributed to the roof tile accident. The plaintiff claimed serious neurological and physical impairment, and the case went to trial. However, prior to trial, our attorney successfully defeated all of plaintiff’s causes of action against our client.
*** In a premises liability wrongful death action involving the death of a school security guard, our attorneys defended the roofing subcontractor involved in the rehabilitation of a school campus at which the decedent school security guard was employed. The plaintiff, the decedent’s wife, brought suit against the general contractor and in turn the general contractor sued our client and other subcontractors working on the project. The plaintiff alleged negligence and premises liability claiming that the decedent died as a result of injuries he sustained after slipping and falling on rocks deposited on a stairway on the subject property. The case primarily involved a dispute as to whether our client was involved in the construction operations at or around the time of the injury incident. Through analysis of the client job file and multiple depositions our attorneys were able to establish that the client was not on site and therefore could not be found liable for the alleged incident. Negotiations thereafter took place and we positioned the drafting of a motion for summary judgment. Prior to the drafting of the motion, but after discovery, we offered a nuisance value cost of defense settlement in lieu of the filing of such a motion.
*** The plaintiff, an employee of our client, was seriously injured while working on a major home renovation project and claimed thousands of dollars in damages. The plaintiff allegedly walked onto an unsupported sheet of plywood in the demolition area (away from the plaintiff’s work of installing caissons) and fell nine feet onto concrete and suffered serious injuries. Following this incident, the plaintiff received worker’s compensation benefits for his medical expenses and lost wages. The plaintiff claimed he experienced significant pain during recovery from the surgery, continued to experience pain long after the accident and was expected to have some level of permanent back pain. Following the incident, the project site was inspected by Cal-OSHA as part of the accident investigation and the client was issued a citation for not ensuring that the plaintiff was using a fall restraint harness, as specified under Section 1670 of the California Code of Regulations. Although the citation was later dismissed for lack of evidence, the general contractor on the project used the citation as the basis for a cross-complaint against our client. However, during the litigation, we maintained that entering the demolition area was not within the area or scope of plaintiff’s work, and therefore Section 1670 should not apply. During his deposition, the Cal-OSHA inspector admitted that it was now his understanding that section 1670 did not apply under the circumstances and that given his present understanding he would not have issued the citation to the client. During mediation and subsequent settlement negotiations by the parties, we maintained our position that our client had limited liability and ultimately succeeded in settling the cross-complaint for nuisance value.
*** Our attorneys successfully succeeded on a motion for summary judgment in a personal injury, construction site accident case. The plaintiff was a demolition laborer who was struck in the head by a falling light fixture during the demolition of an old hospital building. He was severely injured and claimed in excess of $500,000 in future lost wages. We represented the owner of the hospital building and won a motion for summary judgment after the court agreed there can be no liability where the property owner did not actively cause the accident, but merely owned the property.