BWB&O’s client was a concrete contractor hired by a government entity for a limited sidewalk repair project many years ago. The Plaintiff, who was confined to a wheelchair, filed suit against BWB&O’s client alleging Negligence and Premises Liability after an alleged fall injury on a public sidewalk. Plaintiff’s primary alleged theory of liability against BWB&O’s client was that it either worked on or was supposed to work on that subject sidewalk and in doing so, or failure to do so, caused Plaintiff’s fall and subsequent alleged injuries/damages. Plaintiff claimed in excess of $1 million in damages.
After extensive discovery, Mr. Au and Ms. Vahdat gathered enough evidence to prove that BWB&O’s client neither worked on the subject area nor was required to do so. Accordingly, they prepared a successful Motion for Summary Judgment on the basis that no duty was owed to Plaintiff thereby refuting the negligence cause of action. The dispositive motion also proved that the subject sidewalk was not owned, controlled, or maintained by BWB&O’s client thereby negating the premises liability cause of action.
Ultimately, the Court agreed that there was no triable issue of material fact and that BWBO’s client was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Moreover, through this successful Motion for Summary Judgment, Mr. Au and Ms. Vahdat were able to dismiss the derivative claim from Plaintiff’s spouse, as well as all claims made against the named officers of BWB&O’s client including the president of the company. This was achieved before a court ordered settlement conference and without the need of extensive trial preparation—thereby achieving not only a great result but also efficiently resolving the action before the expense of expert discovery and trial.