Baez v. Inserra Supermarkets | Legal Ethics in Personal Injury Cases

TORTS | PERSONAL INJURY

Submitted by New Jersey Personal Injury Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark

Baez v. Inserra Supermarkets, Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of her personal injury complaint, in which she alleged that she fell because of a depression in the sidewalk adjacent to defendant’s supermarket after she exited the market. The panel affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed by the judge below, who, after noting that the mere occurrence of an accident was not sufficient to impose liability on the commercial property owner, found that since, in her deposition testimony, plaintiff had candidly and unequivocally stated that she did not know what caused her to fall, she had not presented any evidence that a defect on the sidewalk abutting defendant’s property proximately caused her to fall. Again, without more than, “I fell”, this attorney should not have taken this case! It presents a bad image for all other attorneys and other cases which deserve the proper attention. IF the attorney had taken the time to listen to the client say, “I do not who what caused me to fall”, “I did not see anything”, or “I do not remember!” ethically and professionally he should not have taken the case. In the alternative, even after deposition preparation, the witness was candid and clear, than the plaintiff’s attorney should have dismissed the case on his own and shown the plaintiff the door! Bad cases make bad law.

Leave A Comment...

*