LA Sidewalk Trip-and-Fall Case Settles for $1.15M

Case Background

Plaintiff Nancy Gossett filed her complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, after she suffered serious injuries in a public area incident. The lawsuit, filed on November 3, 2021, initiated a complex legal battle involving governmental entities responsible for public infrastructure and a private corporation.

Cause

The core of the dispute centered on a trip-and-fall incident that occurred on August 9, 2021, at an address on South Bundy Drive in Los Angeles. Ms. Gossett asserted that she had been walking on the sidewalk when she encountered a section of uneven pavement. She alleged that this defect, which created an unforeseen hazard, caused her to trip and fall, resulting in catastrophic harm. The complaint specifically accused the responsible parties of a negligent failure to maintain and repair the public walkway, allowing the dangerous condition to persist without adequate warning to pedestrians.

Injury

While the official Court documents referred only to "serious personal injuries," the nature of the multi-million-dollar damages sought suggested permanent and life-altering physical harm. Such injuries typically involved major orthopedic trauma, requiring extensive medical intervention, surgery, and a prolonged period of rehabilitation. Ms. Gossett contended that the injuries severely restricted her mobility and quality of life.

Damages Sought

Ms. Gossett sought extensive financial recovery from the Defendants. Her petition requested general damages to compensate her for the pain, suffering, inconvenience, and emotional distress she endured. She also claimed special damages, which included all past and future medical costs, lost wages, and loss of earning capacity. In addition, the Plaintiff requested punitive damages, which aimed not just to compensate her, but to punish the Defendants for their alleged willful failure to act and deter similar conduct in the future, suggesting her counsel believed the Defendants’ conduct went beyond simple negligence.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

The lawsuit, bearing the case number 21STCV40431, moved through the initial stages of litigation, with the Defendants filing formal responses to the complaint, setting the stage for what promised to be a lengthy and highly contested trial.

Legal Representation

The case involved prominent legal teams representing all parties, navigating the complex interplay between municipal law, premises liability, and tort claims.

Plaintiff(s): Nancy Gossett

·       Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Nicholas P. Kohan, | Jason N. Stones

Defendant(s): City of Los Angeles | County of Los Angeles | Delek Enterprises, Inc.

·       Counsel for Defendant(s): Michael J. Zuckerman | Patrick E. Stockalper | Chapovsky Dimitry | Gillespie Evelyn Regina | Stockalper Patrick Edward

Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel

The procedural filings established the main battle lines. Ms. Gossett's legal team laid out a clear argument that the Defendants had a legal duty to keep the public sidewalk safe and failed that duty.

Claims

Ms. Gossett’s case rested on two primary legal theories: general negligence and premises liability.

General Negligence: The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants had a fundamental duty of care to all pedestrians using the area. She claimed that they breached this duty by failing to conduct regular and necessary inspections of the public walkway. This lack of diligence, she argued, led directly to the existence of the uneven pavement, a hazard they should have discovered and fixed long before the accident. The Defendants’ inaction was, therefore, the direct cause of her injuries.

Premises Liability This claim focused on the Defendants’ capacity as owners or controllers of the property. Ms. Gossett contended that the uneven sidewalk constituted a dangerous condition on the premises for which the controlling entities were legally responsible. Her team argued that because the condition was not immediately visible or had not been properly marked, the Defendants failed to provide adequate warning of the hazard, thereby making the premises unreasonably dangerous for ordinary use.

Defense

The Defendants responded aggressively, with the County of Los Angeles's Answer serving as a representative example of the legal position taken by the governmental entities.

The County categorically denied every allegation of fault, stating that it was not responsible for the Plaintiff's injuries. They asserted numerous legal defenses, fundamentally arguing that they had maintained the property with reasonable care and that they lacked either actual or constructive notice of the defect. Furthermore, the defense contended that governmental immunities protected them from liability for certain aspects of public property maintenance. Crucially, the defense also claimed that Ms. Gossett herself bore responsibility for her injuries under the doctrine of comparative negligence, suggesting that she had failed to exercise reasonable care for her own safety while walking.

Settlement

The complex litigation and the looming May 3, 2023, trial date ultimately spurred the parties to seek a resolution outside of the Courtroom. The case, which had been filed in November 2021, concluded just over two years later. On January 29, 2024, counsel for the Plaintiff, Nancy Gossett, filed a formal Notice of Settlement of Entire Case with the Court, confirming that all parties had reached a full and final agreement to resolve the dispute.

The parties did not proceed to a jury verdict. Instead, the Defendants, facing the financial risk and uncertainty of a trial, agreed to a substantial settlement with Ms. Gossett. The final resolution required the Defendants to pay $1,155,000 to Ms. Gossett to compensate her for her medical expenses, pain and suffering, and other damages she incurred from the incident. This private settlement ended the lawsuit, ensuring that the details of the negotiations and the full extent of the evidence remained confidential and preventing the case from ever reaching a public verdict. The settlement served as the final chapter in the proceedings, marking the end of Ms. Gossett’s legal fight for recovery.

Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com