Jury Duty Part II - The Trial

On Wednesday, October 22 the trial began in the Philadelphia City Hall (pictured above) with the Honorable Judge Ricardo Jackson presiding. We were originally in a gorgeous old courtroom with high ceilings and beautifully carved wood just like you see in the movies. Apparently, however, the sound quality in that room isn't the best so they moved the trial into a smaller room which wasn't nearly as pleasing aesthetically but I guess had better acoustics.

After we were seated and the Judge entered, Mr. Guise, the plaintiff's attorney, gave his opening remarks. He told us about the plaintiff, a 70-year old man who, for the last 7-8 years, visited the Turf Club 2 or 3 times a week with his girlfriend. We were shown a diagram of the entry of the Turf Club, which consisted of a small foyer with a stairwell approximately 10 ft wide with railings on both sides and down the center, an escalator on the right-hand side of the stairwell when facing from the bottom, and an elevator to the left of the stairs in a little hallway. The club area was at the top of the stairs on the second floor. Mr. Guise told us that the plaintiff was coming down the stairs and at the fourth step from the bottom his foot caught a piece of metal that was protruding from the plate that was placed over the carpet on the edge of each step and tumbled. Plaintiff had a bad cut on his head, leg and severely hurt his back and hand. Plaintiff claimed that after it happened, one of the managers, Angelo, came to his aid and said, "We will take care of you, this is the Turf Club's fault." An ambulance was called but the plaintiff didn't want to go because he had a new truck with a bunch of equipment and supplies and was afraid that it would be broken into. He went home and after a couple days went to his family doctor. From there he went to a couple chiropractors. He died in 2007, three years after the fall, from causes unrelated to the fall. The attorney claimed that prior to the fall plaintiff was in good physical condition and had been working construction. The plaintiff's estate was suing the Turf Club for negligence.

Next was the defense attorney, Mr. Kramer. He didn't dispute that the plaintiff had fallen. He basically just went over the layout of the stairs, showing us that they were carpeted and included a safety plate that was bolted through the carpet and into the marble stairs, that there were three railings and that no one had reported any abnormalities with the stairs. He also referred to a video that would be shown of the day the plaintiff fell showing other people walking up and down the stairs on the spot the plaintiff claimed was dangerous.

Next came the witnesses. Even though the plaintiff was deceased, he had answered interrogatories that could be admitted into evidence. Plaintiff's attorney had someone seated on the stand to read parts of the interrogatories. It all sounded horrible. The plaintiff explained how he was in great shape, had no medical problems, was a contractor and was just recently putting up siding on his landlord's house using a ladder. He went into how he bowled every week but could no longer do this or work since the fall. He had gone to a couple chiropractors and had been seeing one for 8 months. He also explained how Angelo had told him that it was the Club's fault, that they knew the stairs had a problem, and that they would take care of him.

The defense attorney then had the witness read other parts of the interrogatories which made me question the plaintiff's credibility. For example, plaintiff was asked about his occupation. He stated that he was a construction worker but had been on disability since 1974. He said he did odd jobs here and there and that his landlord was actually his girlfriend, which made his earlier statement seem a little suspect.

The plaintiff then called the chiropractor who had treated the plaintiff. He had a model spine and showed us all the things that were wrong with the plaintiff's neck and back from the fall. It went on for about 40 minutes and I was having a hard time paying attention. Bottom line was that he had a lot problems. The chiropractor also read other medical reports from plaintiff's history that used terminology no one could understand and made his injuries sound horrendous.

The defense then got up and asked what the chiropractors credentials were, making sure that the jury knew he was not an MD or DO. He had the chiropractor read parts of the medical records which stated that plaintiff had knee surgery the year prior to the Turf Club accident for another slip-and-fall, and that he had a plethora of other medical problems, including twelve other complaints that seemed to involve the whole body.

Plaintiff rested and the defense called his only witness, which was the general manager of the Turf Club. She really didn't have anything to say because she wasn't there that night 4 years ago but she did say that they had a video camera and the defense then showed the video of what happened. The plaintiff fell at around 7:35 and we watched from 7 until he fell. It was very grainy and was not completely fluid but close enough. We watched about 40 people walk down the steps and not one of them tripped or even looked down at the step on which plaintiff tripped. We watched the plaintiff come down. He was walking normally, not holding the rail and then he fell. You couldn't make out whether there was something wrong with the step or not, but it was a bad fall. I really felt for the guy. He was rolling around on the ground trying to get up but he couldn't. Defense closed.

Attorneys then gave closing arguments and the judge gave us our instructions, which was a good 15-20 minutes. I thought they were actually pretty complex. Negligence is not an easy tort to understand, especially in a jurisdiction that has contributory negligence. There were 5 different areas that we could award damages. I had no idea what my fellow jurors thought but I did not feel that the plaintiff had proved his case. In a civil matter the burden of proof is a preponderance of the evidence, which means unless you feel that the plaintiff proved their case by 51% you have to find in favor of the defendant. During closing, I felt the plaintiff's attorney was trying to confuse the jury by saying things like the defense hasn't proved that Angelo didn't claim responsibility (if he had, then the Turf Club could be negligent through one of their agents), that the defense hadn't proved that the step was repaired and other such nonsense. This was a joke in my opinion because the defense doesn't have to prove this. The plaintiff has to prove that it happened. Why didn't the plaintiff put Angelo on the stand? That's what I wanted to know.

When we got back to the deliberation room one of the jurors asked to take a straw vote just to see where we stood. She asked, "Who thinks the Turf Club is negligent?" Not one person raised their hand. We were all shocked. As we only needed 10 of the 12 to agree we were in good shape either way. They wanted to call the clerk right away and tell him we were done. I was afraid of doing this because I felt we had a duty to at least discuss the evidence for a few minutes. So we talked for about 15-20 minutes. It was pretty interesting because everyone was saying that they felt bad for the guy but that they just thought he was old and fell, and then they were all telling stories about old people they knew. The video really swayed many of the jurors as they were saying that all those people walking on the spot and not one tripping or even stopping to look made them feel it wasn't a hazard. No mention of the law whatsoever.

We called the clerk and filed back into the courtroom. Plaintiff's attorney did not look very happy. The defense attorney looked cool as a cucumber. Neither looked at the jury when we walked in. The forewoman read the verdict and plaintiff's counsel asked for a polling (since it didn't have to be unanimous), which meant that when our name was called we stood and stated that we agreed with the verdict. I think plaintiff's attorney must have thought that he had a good chance of winning. I say this because of his reaction but also because he let slip during voir dire that arbitration had failed. I think plaintiffs must have been asking for a huge amount.

I have more observations that I may get to some day but I'm a little tired of writing about all this and I'm sure you are tired of reading it, if you've even made it this far.