Breeden V. Vyas

Case Background

On September 24, 2020, Bradley Breeden filed a premises liability lawsuit against Cozy Corner Motel after he slipped and fell on the motel stairs. He alleged he lost his balance due to the motel’s negligence in maintaining the premises properly. The case was filed in the United States District Court, Massachusetts (Springfield). Judge Mark G. Mastroianni presided over this case. [Case number: 3:20cv30157]

Cause

Plaintiff Dr. Bradley Breeden resided in Missouri. The Defendant, VK Krupa Corporation, operated as Cozy Corner Motel and was a Massachusetts corporation. Dr. Breeden, a physician from the St. Louis area, stayed at the Cozy Corner Motel in Williamstown, MA, for several days beginning October 29, 2017. This traditional two-story motel, an older building, featured an interior staircase leading down to the lobby.

On the morning of his checkout, Dr. Breeden carried a full-sized suitcase down the stairs. As he descended, he tripped and fell, tumbling down six additional steps. The impact briefly knocked him unconscious.

Injury

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ negligence, carelessness, and omissions, the doctor suffered serious injuries. Specifically, he experienced painful and permanent damage to several areas of his body. These injuries included his chest, back, neck, ribs, and right shoulder. The impact caused significant harm to the muscles, nerves, tendons, ligaments, tissue, and bones in those areas, leading to severe bruising and contusions.

Damages

Breeden endured significant physical pain, mental anguish, and emotional distress. He sought and received medical care for his injuries in the past. Furthermore, he planned to continue seeking treatment in the future. He incurred substantial medical expenses for his care.

Therefore, Dr. Bradley Breeden demanded judgment against the Defendants, VK Krupa Corporation, doing business as Cozy Corner Motel, and Sonalben K. Vyas. He requested fair and reasonable damages exceeding Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), excluding interest and costs. Additionally, he sought reimbursement for all costs and disbursements incurred in this matter.

He also requested any other relief that he may have been entitled to under the law. He specifically demanded a jury trial for all issues involved.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Dr. Bradley Breeden
    • Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Patrick S. O’Brien | Timothy W. Macri
  • Defendant(s): VK Krupa Corporation d/b/a Cozy Corner Motel | Sonalben Vyas
    • Counsel for Defendant(s): Nancy Frankel Pelletier

Claims

Breeden sued the motel, alleging that the stairs had a dangerous design due to their narrowness and low ceiling. He claimed that the poor lighting contributed to the hazards. Plaintiff stated that the incident and his resulting injuries directly stemmed from the negligence of the Defendant and its agents, servants, and employees. He highlighted several specific failures:

(a) The Defendant and its representatives failed to adequately warn him about the hazardous conditions in the interior stairwell. There were no signs to caution him about the absence of a handrail. The motel knew or should have known through ordinary care, that such a lack of warning could cause harm.

(b) The Defendant and its agents did not implement proper policies for maintaining and inspecting the stairwell and handrail. They should have been aware that neglecting these responsibilities could reasonably lead to injuries.

(c) The Defendant failed to provide a handrail, which they knew or should have known, was necessary to prevent harm.

(d) The Defendant violated various subsections of 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1910.23.

(e) The Defendant breached OSHA Sec. 1910.29(b) regulations from the U.S. Department of Labor.

(f) Additionally, Defendant negligently allowed water to accumulate on the stairs, further increasing the risk of accidents.

Defense

The motel denied that the stairs were dangerous and pointed out that Breeden had used them multiple times during his stay. They suggested that he simply missed a step while carrying his suitcase, which led to his fall. They asserted the following defenses in their answer.

  • First Defense
    The Defendants stated that if they were negligent, which they specifically denied, the Plaintiff’s negligence was greater. Therefore, the Plaintiff could not recover damages.
  • Second Defense
    The Defendants claimed that the Plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to the accident. Consequently, any damages awarded should be reduced according to the law.
  • Third Defense
    The Defendants asserted that the accident described in the Plaintiff’s complaint was not caused by anyone for whom they were legally responsible.
  • Fourth Defense
    The Defendants argued that the Plaintiff was not entitled to recover because the complaint did not present a valid claim for relief.
  • Fifth Defense
    In further response, the Defendants stated that the Plaintiff’s claim was frivolous and not made in good faith. Therefore, they demanded their costs and attorney’s fees under G.L. c. 231, Sec. 6F.
  • Sixth Defense
    The Defendants contended that if the Plaintiff was injured as alleged, it resulted from the actions or negligence of another party. This constituted an intervening, superseding cause, and thus the Defendants were not liable.

Jury Verdict

This case was tried for three days in Springfield. On July 24, 2024, the jury determined that the Cozy Corner Motel was not negligent. As a result, they did not consider Breeden’s duties, apportionment, or damages. A judgment for the defense was subsequently entered.

Court Documents:

Available upon request