Gabriel Carranza vs. The Home Depot

Case Background

On October 21, 2022, Gabriel Carranza filed a premises liability case against The Home Depot alleging negligence. The trip and fall case was filed in the California Superior Court, Los Angeles County. Judge Shirley K. Watkins presided over this case. [Case number: 22VECV01693]

Cause

On July 2, 2021, Gabriel Carranza, the Plaintiff, was shopping at Home Depot at 16800 Roscoe Blvd, Van Nuys, California 91406. As he exited the store, he stumbled over a low-hanging wire or cable used to connect the display barbecue grills. The wire, being close to the ground, was hard to see and placed in a walkway where customers frequently passed. Consequently, he fell to the ground. He suffered both physical and emotional injuries, along with various economic and non-economic damages.

Damages

Due to the Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff experienced several damages, including bodily injury, past and future medical bills, and related expenses. Additionally, the Plaintiff endured mental suffering, physical pain, loss of enjoyment in life, physical impairment, and general inconvenience. Anxiety and emotional distress also resulted from the Defendant’s actions.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

Claims

The Plaintiff alleged negligence and premises liability against The Home Depot. Plaintiff claimed that Home Depot breached the duty to exercise due care in the ownership, management, operation, and maintenance of the store. The low-hanging wire constituted a dangerous or defective condition and created an unreasonable risk of harm to exist on its premises. It was alleged that The Home Depot created this dangerous condition and failed to repair or remedy the situation or give adequate warning about the dangerous condition.

Defense

The Defendants argued that the claim that the property condition described in the Complaint was minor, trivial, or insignificant. They argued that it did not create a dangerous condition, and therefore, the Plaintiff could not recover damages. Additionally, the Defendants contended that any alleged hazardous condition did not present a reasonably foreseeable risk of the claimed injury.

Furthermore, they maintained that the area of the property, which the Plaintiff argued was dangerous and caused the accident, was open and obvious. As a result, it could have been avoided.

Expert Testimony

In this premises liability case, the Plaintiff’s experts included Brad Avrit, P.E., who provided insights into the safety standards and regulations related to the alleged hazardous condition; Neil Ghodadra, M.D., who detailed the nature and extent of the Plaintiff’s injuries; and Kamran Parsa, M.D., who discussed the rehabilitation and long-term impact of the injuries.

On the defense side, Thomas Chen, M.D., contested the severity and causation of the Plaintiff’s injuries; Gavin Huntley-Fenner, PhD, argued that the condition of the wire did not present a significant hazard; Mary Jesko, M.S., examined the safety protocols at The Home Depot; and Jeffrey Wang, M.D., reviewed the emergency medical care provided to the Plaintiff.

Jury Verdict

After a jury of 12 was duly impaneled and sworn in, witnesses testified from May 2, 2024, to May 13, 2024. Following the presentation of evidence and arguments, and after receiving instructions from the Court, the jury returned their verdict on May 14, 2024.

The jury ruled in favor of Plaintiff Gabriel Carranza and against Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., awarding the following damages:

  • Future Economic Damages: $28,302.04
  • Past Non-Economic Damages: $127,750.00
  • Future Non-Economic Damages: $212,916.67
  • Total Damages: $368,968.71

The jury assigned 90% of the responsibility for the Plaintiff’s harm to Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. and 10% to the Plaintiff.

On June 21, 2024, Judge Shirley Watkins issued a judgment consistent with the jury’s verdict. The judgment stated that Plaintiff Gabriel Carranza was entitled to recover $334,902.05 after adjusting the contributory negligence. Additionally, he was to receive the costs of the suit and post-judgment interest accruing at the legal rate of 10% per annum, starting from the date of the judgment until payment was made.

Court Documents:

Available upon request