Paris Inman-Clark v. The Neiman Marcus Group LLC

Case Background

On October 10, 2019, former model Paris Inman-Clark filed a personal injury lawsuit against The Neiman Marcus Group LLC, a luxury retail and real estate company, and The Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC.

The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg presided over the case. [Case number: 2:19cv4717]

Cause

Defendants Neiman Marcus Group LLC and Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants” or “Neiman Marcus”) are in the luxury retail business with a number of department stores, including the store it owns, operates, and otherwise controls located at the King of Prussia Mall (“Neiman Marcus King of Prussia)

On October 27, 2017, Paris Inman-Clark was working as an independent contractor for Reinhard Model & Talent Agency in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. On the same day, Plaintiff was hired by Marchesa, a clothing brand sold by Neiman Marcus, to model gowns for customers at the Neiman Marcus store in King of Prussia.

While waiting to be photographed by a Neiman Marcus employee in the Personal Shopper dressing room area, a large, heavy, wooden artwork suddenly fell from the store’s wall. The artwork struck the Plaintiff on the head. This incident occurred without warning and was caused by a defective or dangerous condition of the premises. As a result, the Plaintiff sustained severe and permanent bodily injuries.

Injury

As a direct result of the Defendants’ negligence, Inman-Clark suffered severe injuries. These included but were not limited to, loss of consciousness, a concussion, and pain in her neck and shoulders. Inman-Clark also experienced post-concussion symptoms, such as headaches, loss of balance, light sensitivity, eye pain, disorientation, reduced concentration, and memory issues. Additionally, Plaintiff sustained permanent brain injury.

Damages

As a direct result of the Defendants’ negligence, Inman-Clark incurred significant medical expenses in the past and would continue to do so in the future. These expenses were for treatment, rehabilitation, and efforts to cure her injuries, as well as to reduce her pain and suffering.

Additionally, Inman-Clark suffered severe pain and suffering, mental anguish, and emotional distress. She experienced embarrassment, humiliation, inconvenience, anxiety, and depression. The Plaintiff also lost the ability to enjoy life, both now and in the future.

As a further result of the Defendants’ negligence, Inman-Clark sustained permanent injuries. These injuries caused disability in her work and personal life, limiting her activities at home, work, and during recreation.

Lastly, due to the Defendants’ negligence, she lost wages and earning capacity in the past. She also faces a continued loss of earning capacity into the future, affecting her for the rest of her life.

Inman-Clark sought over $150,000 in damages for her injuries, medical expenses, pain and suffering, and lost earning capacity.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Paris Inman-Clark
    • Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Thomas L. Church | David D. Langfitt
  • Defendant(s):  The Neiman Marcus Group LLC | The Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC
    • Counsel for Defendant(s): Frank A. Chernak | Kimberly Sachs | Steven Pachman

Claims

The personal injury complaint argued that the Defendants were negligent by failing to properly install, maintain, inspect, and secure the artwork. This negligence led to the dangerous condition.

Defense

Neiman Marcus denied the allegations, claiming it was not negligent and unaware of any hazardous conditions. The Defendant argued that other factors might have contributed to Inman-Clark’s symptoms. These included two car accidents she was involved in after the incident.

Motion for Summary Judgment

On July 8, 2024, Inman-Clark filed a motion for partial summary judgment. She argued that Neiman Marcus owed her a heightened duty of care as a business invitee. Neiman Marcus opposed the motion, claiming that a jury should resolve several factual issues. These included the cause of the painting’s fall and the extent of Inman-Clark’s injuries.

On Nov. 13, 2024, U.S. District Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg granted Inman-Clark’s motion. He determined that Neiman Marcus owed her a duty of reasonable care. Judge Goldberg also found that the company’s negligence in installing the artwork caused her injury. He rejected Neiman Marcus’ arguments, which suggested that factors like environmental conditions or customer interference contributed to the painting’s fall.

Jury Verdict

A federal jury trial started on December 9, 2024. After several days of testimony, the jury found in favor of Inman-Clark. On Dec. 17, 2024, the jury awarded her $1.25 million in damages. The award included $600,000 for the first claim and $650,000 for the second. The court then entered judgment in Inman-Clark’s favor, finalizing the personal injury case’s resolution.

Court Documents:

Documents are available for purchase upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com