Senior Trial Partner Rosaleen T. McCrory, Partner Samantha E. Shaw, and Associate Edmund T. Rakowski successfully secured summary judgment in a case involving a then 79-year-old legally blind plaintiff, who was a resident of an assisted living facility. Plaintiff alleged that she tripped and fell over a defective floormat in the lobby of the facility, resulting in a left humeral surgical neck fracture that required a left shoulder reverse total arthroplasty.
We moved for summary judgment utilizing an Affirmation from our internal medicine expert and Affidavits from the Administrator and Operations Manager of the facility. We argued that there was no evidence of a defective condition on the premises and plaintiff could not establish the facility caused or had constructive or actual notice of a defective condition. Further, in the absence of proof that the mat was defective, case law supports the contention that it would be just as likely the fall occurred without negligence. Moreover, we argued that the deposition testimony of plaintiff and her non-party daughter, who was at the scene of the accident after the fall, supported there was no evidence of a defective condition. This was further supported by the records kept by the facility as well as the deposition testimony of a facility employee. Finally, we argued that the legally blind plaintiff was non-compliant with the plan of care directing her to seek assistance for ambulation and that an assisted living facility cannot use patient restraint to enforce compliance.
In its decision awarding summary judgment, the Court agreed with our argument that there was no evidence that the facility caused or had constructive or actual notice of a defective condition. The Court determined that plaintiff failed to establish a defective condition based on the testimony and records, and that plaintiff herself did not know the cause of her own fall. Furthermore, the Court agreed with our position that it was just as likely plaintiff tripped due to a misstep, and rejected plaintiff's argument that floor mats are inherently hazardous conditions. Lastly, the Court noted that the evidence we submitted in support of our motion established the floor mat was in a heavily trafficked area that plaintiff had successfully traversed numerous times in the past, including the same day of the incident. Accordingly, the Court determined there was no triable issue of fact, and summary judgment was warranted.