Senior Trial Attorney, Claire Rush Obtains a Directed Verdict in Supreme Court, Kings County

Senior Trial Attorney and Partner, Claire Rush obtained a directed verdict in Supreme Court, Kings County after almost two weeks of jury selection and trial.

The case involved a middle-aged woman who slipped and fell on a grassy area abutting a well-lit covered emergency parking area, after a rainstorm. The accident was captured by a surveillance camera. Prior counsel had moved for summary judgment and the Court had noted that a landowner is not required to protect against an open and obvious condition that is inherent or incidental to the nature of the property. The court found that the plaintiff should have anticipated the ground to be slippery because of the rain. The Court, however, denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment finding that a material issue of fact existed with respect to the adequacy of the lighting. Ms. Rush made a motion in limine to limit the scope of the trial to the adequacy of the lighting, under the theory of "law of the case". The trial court granted the motion and the trial proceeded. Ms. Rush moved for a directed verdict at the close of the plaintiff’s case and after resting. Ms. Rush argued that a landowner does not have a generalized duty to illuminate all areas of its property at night and that given the fact that the surveillance video demonstrated, and the defendant’s employees testified, that the area was well lit, the plaintiff needed expert testimony to establish that the lighting was somehow inadequate. The Court reserved the decision and instructed return for Summation the following week. Upon returning the Court announced that it was rendering a decision on the motion for a directed verdict. The Court noted that the plaintiff had failed to introduce proof that the lighting was inadequate, and that any verdict would be based upon pure speculation. The Court accordingly dismissed the plaintiff’s action.