Page 12 - Verdicts and Settlements Hall of Fame: Premises Liability

#7
PREMISES LIABILITY
VERDICT & SETTLEMENTS
HALL OF FAME
Case: Epshteyn v. Branchinelli
Attorney: Paul J. Edelstein, Daniel omas & Boris Zivotov
Firm: e Edelsteins, Faegenburg & Brown LLP, NYC, trial counsel, Boris Zivotov, Esq., PC, Brooklyn Date: September 25,2013
Verdict: $8,979,045
Homeowner didn’t warn of attic’s hazard, repairman claimed
On June 26, 2007, plaintiff Leonid Epshteyn, 56, a servicer of cooling, heating and ventilation systems, worked in the attic of a house that was located at 32 Stone Hill Drive E., in Manhasset. After having completed his work, he fell through the oor of the attic. He plummeted some 20 feet, landed on the home’s ground oor, and sustained injuries of his back, a hand, a heel, three ribs, a shoulder and a wrist.
Epshteyn sued the home’s owner, Rosetta Branchinelli. He alleged that Branchinelli failed to warn him of a dangerous condition that caused his accident.
Epshteyn claimed that neither he nor Branchinelli could locate the attic’s light switch, so he had to use a ashlight to illuminate the work space. He noted that plywood had been placed across beams to form a makeshift oor, but that the
plywood did not cover the entire
area. His accident occurred when he
stepped on insulation between two
beams, and he claimed that Branchi-
nelli did not warn that the entire
area was not covered by plywood.
of his spine’s lumbar and thoracic regions. Epshteyn was placed in an ambulance, and he was transported to a hospital. He under- went open reduction and internal xation of the fractures of his left shoulder, his left wrist and his right foot’s heel. His hospitalization lasted 28 days, and he subsequently commenced a course of physi- cal therapy, which is ongoing.
Epshteyn claimed that he suffers constant, permanent residual pain that prevents his resumption of work. He further claimed that he requires additional surgeries and lifelong physical therapy.
The parties stipulated that Epshteyn’s past medical expenses totaled $292,945. Epshteyn sought recovery of that amount, future medical expenses, past and future lost earnings, and damages for past and future pain and suffering. His wife, Tatyana Epshteyn, presented a
The parties’ experts disagreed
on whether the placement of the light switch was acceptable or not. Epshteyn’s counsel argued that the switch’s location created a dangerous condition that contributed to the accident.
Defense counsel also contended that the accident occurred while Epshteyn was exiting the attic after having safely accessed and serviced an air-conditioning unit. He argued that Epshteyn, an experienced mechanic in possession of a ashlight, should have been able to safely navigate a plywood path that he had traversed minutes earlier.
Epshteyn sustained a fracture of his right heel, left shoulder, wrist, and middle nger; three ribs; and herniations of intervertebral discs
tary work.
10 September 2016
HE ALLEGED THAT BRANCHINELLI FAILED TO WARN HIM OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION THAT CAUSED HIS ACCIDENT.
derivative claim.
The defense’s expert neurolo- gist opined that Mr. Epshteyn does not suffer residual neurological de cits. The defense’s vocational- rehabilitation expert opined that Epshteyn possesses skills that will allow his performance of seden-
After the jury had concluded deliberations, but before the verdict was revealed, the parties negotiated a high/low stipulation: Damages could not exceed $2.75 million, but they had to equal or exceed $1 million. Branchinelli’s insurance provided coverage of $3.5 million.
The jury found that both parties were liable for the accident. Branchinelli was assigned 48 percent of the liability, and Epshteyn was assigned 52 percent of the liability. The jury determined that Epshteyn’s damages totaled $8,979,045. The comparative-negligence reduction would have produced a net recovery of $4,309,941.60, but Epshteyn recovered the stipulated limit: $2.75 million.