Chip Brown v. ICO Development: Los Angeles Slip-and-Fall
Table of Contents
Case Background
On March 8, 2021, Chip Brown arrived at the Mercantile Lofts on South Main Street in Los Angeles. ICO Development, LLC owned and managed the property. That morning, a worker power-washed the entrance ramp, leaving water pooled on the walking surface. Brown stepped onto the ramp’s north edge to enter the building. Without warning, his foot slipped, and he crashed down on the wet concrete.
Cause
Brown argued ICO Development failed to keep the entrance safe. He said the ramp was not slip resistant and water collected easily. There were no warning signs or barriers during cleaning. He claimed the company should have directed the worker to secure the area or provided another way inside.
Injury
Brown’s fall fractured his left tibia and fibula and tore ligaments in his ankle. He needed open reduction internal fixation surgery. He endured months of pain, rehabilitation, and emotional stress. He said his injuries limited his daily activities and prevented him from working for an extended period.
Damages Sought
Brown sought payment for his medical bills, future medical needs, pain and suffering, emotional distress, and lost wages. He alleged permanent disability would affect his quality of life and earning capacity.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Chip Brown
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Daniel K. Kramer | Teresa A. Johnson | Brandon C. Salumbides | Nathan Soleimani
· Experts for the Plaintiff: Mary Cheffers | Richard Compton | Laura Edinger | Moshe Samuel Hendizadeh | Craig Joseph | Farzin Kabaei | Stepan Ozcan Kasimian | Paul Kundinge | Christina Mosher | Ronen Nazarian | Jan Roughan
Defendant(s): ICO Development, LLC
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Craig L. Dunkin | Julia R. Cohn
· Experts for Defendant(s): Gabriel Barnard | Mark Blanchette | John House | Nancy Michalski | Russell Nelson | Tye Ouzounian | Amy Sutton
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Plaintiff’s counsel told the jury that ICO Development ignored basic safety. They highlighted city building codes requiring slip-resistant ramps and drainage to prevent liquid buildup. They said the company’s worker created a hazard and left no warnings.
Defense counsel denied wrongdoing. They claimed Brown bore responsibility for his fall. They suggested he failed to watch his step and argued others could have caused the hazard. They cited comparative negligence and third-party fault as defenses, saying the company took reasonable care.
Claims
Negligence
Brown said ICO Development, and its agents acted carelessly by allowing a slippery ramp, failing to warn pedestrians, and not supervising cleaning properly.
Premises Liability
He alleged ICO Development knew or should have known the ramp was dangerous when wet. He said they neglected their duty to keep the entrance safe or provide alternate access.
Defense
ICO Development issued a general denial of all allegations. They raised twenty-one defenses, including failure to state a claim, comparative negligence, superseding causes, waiver, estoppel, and unclean hands. They argued Brown delayed filing, failed to mitigate damages, and that any non-economic damages should be reduced by proportionate fault.
Jury Verdict
After hearing testimony and reviewing the evidence, the jury found ICO Development negligent in maintaining the ramp. They concluded the negligence substantially caused Brown’s injuries. The jury rejected the defense’s claims of superseding causes or exclusive fault by Brown. They apportioned most of the responsibility to ICO Development. The verdict confirmed that Brown was entitled to damages for his injuries, pain and suffering, and financial losses.
Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com