West Virginia Record

Sunday, July 21, 2019

ATRA singles out Supreme Court's decision in Berkeley Co. case over fall down steps

By John O'Brien | Dec 17, 2013

CHARLESTON - Much of the blame for West Virginia’s ranking on the latest Judicial Hellholes report can be attributed to a recent state Supreme Court decision involving a man who fell down a set of stairs in Martinsburg and sued the property owner.

On Dec. 17, the American Tort Reform Association named West Virginia the No. 4 Judicial Hellhole in America in its annual report. The state has been listed as a Judicial Hellhole every year since the report began in 2002 and has twice claimed the top spot.

Listed first in its analysis of the state’s legal climate was a Berkeley County case that abolished the “open and obvious” doctrine.

“Before changing this rule, West Virginia judges could dismiss meritless lawsuits where the plaintiff complained of an injury that resulted from ignoring an obvious hazard,” the report says.

“Now, every slip-and-fall claim filed in West Virginia may require a full jury trial no matter how irresponsible the plaintiff’s conduct in accepting a known risk.”

Walter Hersh says he sustained a head injury when he fell down steps that connected a parking lot to another parking lot in front of a store called Second Time Around on Winchester Ave. in Martinsburg. The steps did not have handrails.

Hersh testified that he felt the steps were safe, except for the lack of handrails.

The defendants argued a property owner is not liable for injuries sustained as a result of dangers that are obvious, reasonably apparent, or as well known to the person injured as they are to the owner.

Former Berkeley County Circuit Court Judge Gina Groh, who was later appointed to a federal judgeship, agreed with the defendants and granted their motion for summary judgment, but the state Supreme Court overruled her in November.

In a 3-2 vote, the court abolished the “open and obvious” doctrine.

“If a hazard is open and obvious on premises, it does not preclude a cause of action by a plaintiff for injuries caused by that hazard,” Justice Menis Ketchum wrote for the majority.

“Instead, a jury may consider the obviousness of the hazard in determining the comparative negligence of the plaintiff against that of the owner or possessor of the premises.”

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Allen Loughry wrote that the court “saddled property owners with the impossible burden of making their premises ‘injury proof’ for persons who either refuse or are inexplicably incapable of taking personal responsibility for their own safety.”

Hersh’s testimony showed that he was aware of the condition of the steps. He said he used a cane while using the stairs because there were no handrails, which were removed to discourage skateboarders.

Hersh must now use a wheelchair. Prior to the fall, he was independent in his day-to-day activities, the appeal brief says.

However, the defendants cited a report from Hersh’s neurologist that said he had “chronic slowly progressive problems with balance” such that “(s)teps are hazardous, particularly going down when his heel will get caught on the tread.”

And less than a month before the fall, Hersh told another doctor during a disability evaluation that he was having problems with balance and falling almost daily, the defendants say.

Loughry began his dissent by arguing that its decisions like the one in Hersh’s case that give the state its reputation as a Judicial Hellhole.

“(O)rdinary homeowners will pay the highest price for the majority’s pandering to persons who ignore the risk associated with open and obvious hazards that ordinary, hard-working citizens encounter every day and invariably utilize their common sense and good judgment to avoid,” Loughry wrote.

“This decision is a radical departure from our well-established law, and, therefore, I dissent.”

The state’s trial lawyers group, the West Virginia Association for Justice, filed an amicus brief in the case. It says the ATRA report misrepresented the facts of the case.

Not having handrails on the steps violated a Martinsburg ordinance.

“ATRA fails to mention that the case record shows those handrails were down for months, even though it was against city ordinances,” said Bernie Layne, WVAJ president and attorney at Mani Ellis & Layne in Charleston.

“ATRA argues Mr. Hersh was ‘falling on a daily basis’ – but that is not true, and there is no evidence to support the claim.

Every commercial and private property owner has a responsibility to ensure that their properties do not have known hazards that could result in serious injury.”

From the West Virginia Record: Reach John O’Brien at jobrienwv@gmail.com.

Want to get notified whenever we write about ?

Sign-up Next time we write about , we'll email you a link to the story. You may edit your settings or unsubscribe at any time.

More News