Facts

On April 20, 2007, the plaintiff, a 45-year-old marketing manager, slipped and fell at La Valencia Hotel in La Jolla.

A couple of years before the accident, the hotel installed smooth marble tiles in its Veranda Room. Because that type of flooring is slippery when wet, La Valencia hired Slip-Tech Inc. to provide more traction via an etching process.

It was raining on the day of the accident and the plaintiff allegedly fell as a result of tracking water from outside into the Veranda Room.

The plaintiff sued La Valencia, alleging premises liability based on a dangerous condition and negligence, and Slip-Tech, alleging negligence. He asserted that Slip-Tech installed, and La Valencia maintained, a tile floor that was slippery when wet. He charged that the hotel failed to place an awning over the outdoor walkway — contrary to its custom — which would have prevented patrons from getting their feet wet and tracking water inside.

La Valencia argued that it was not negligent and that Slip-Tech failed to etch the floor microscopically to achieve a sufficient coefficient of friction.

Slip-Tech argued that it etched the floor microscopically and adequately, and that the hotel did not maintain the floor adequately.

Both defendants argued that the plaintiff was comparatively negligent for tracking the water inside and not walking with caution.

The plaintiff responded that he took precautions to keep his footing while walking on the tiles.

Injury

The plaintiff sustained a trimalleolar ankle fracture with a posterior and lateral dislocation of his left ankle and a deep abrasion on the inner ankle bone. He was taken by ambulance to a hospital, where he received pain medications and underwent open reduction with internal fixation. The surgeon implanted screws and a plate. He underwent a second surgery later to remove the hardware.

The plaintiff missed six weeks of work.

He claimed residual swelling and pain in his ankle, and an inability to jog, walk for exercise or play basketball in his driveway as he used to do. In addition, he alleged that using stairs became more difficult and that he faced early onset of arthritis. He claimed that he will require ankle fusion surgery in the future.

The plaintiff sought $144,470.94 in past medical expenses and damages for future medical expenses, lost earnings and pain and suffering.

The defendants argued that the plaintiff had no residual pain or limitations in his ankle.

Verdict Information

The parties settled for $650,000.