Walters Richardson defends companies under allegation of injuries caused to those on their premises. Whether the issue be a slip and fall case, electricity defects, or security issues, our attorneys are equipped to investigate all elements of the situation in order to ascertain the best possible defense for the property owner. Should litigation be necessary, our attorneys are prepared to handle any case that they receive by conceiving the most effective strategies. The protection of the property owner is the first priority of the attorneys at Walters Richardson.
Our team of attorneys has experience with a variety of premises liability claims, ranging from claims of alleged property defects to negligent maintenance. We have also represented a variety of defendants, ranging from a homeowner sued after a slip and fall on his property to a nationwide franchisee sued for catastrophic injuries sustained on one of its restaurant locations. We understand that while a property owner has a duty to people who are invited to the property, the reasonableness of the owner’s actions will vary based on the circumstances. Our attorneys are committed to a fact-intensive inquiry to determine exactly what happened in order to protect you from liability.
Our attorneys have experience defending the interests of its clients in premises liability matters from pre-litigation all the way to the Kentucky Supreme Court, obtaining outstanding results in the process.
Attorneys at Walters Richardson also understand that successful business owners have hundreds of visitors to their property every day, and we are responsive to your needs by providing prompt updates on the status of your case and the ever evolving law of premises liability.
A plaintiff purchased a new home and three weeks later, she stepped into her yard and fell on a depression. She sued the construction company that built her home for her medical bills, totaling $27,388 and over a quarter million dollars in pain and suffering. Walters Richardson defended the construction company and argued that not only was the depression in the yard obvious, but that the plaintiff’s husband had done a detailed inspection of the property before the couple purchased the home. Our attorneys’ zealous advocacy convinced the jury that the construction company had done nothing wrong, and as a result, the plaintiff was awarded nothing. McKean v. Barlow Homes, Fayette Circuit Court, 07-2264.
A plaintiff in Floyd County sued the owner of a BP gas station after she fell on an oily spot in the gas station parking lot. The plaintiff brought her father to testify, who told the jury that he saw the oily spot in the parking lot a few hours before the plaintiff visited. Our attorneys noted the inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimony, and also put on proof that the plaintiff’s injuries had healed. The jury agreed and awarded a $0 verdict. Tucker v. Childers Oil Co., Floyd Circuit Court, 99-CI-0077. See KYTCR report.
Another plaintiff, a carpenter, was injured on the job after the roof of the project collapsed. He noted that once he arrived at the site, he saw the porch was sagging and attempted to fix the sag before the collapse. He sued several entities, including the contractor, and sought $42,192 in medical bills, $65,000 in lost wages and $130,269 in impairment. Our attorneys pointed out that not only had the plaintiff recovered and was in fact earning more money than he did before the accident, but he also admitted that he was aware of the sagging roof and negligently repaired it immediately before it collapsed. Our advocacy resulted in the jury putting the plaintiff 60 percent at fault for his injuries, making the contractor responsible for only its share of a $21,046 verdict – less than a quarter of what the plaintiff originally sought in damages. Stacy v. Barlow Homes et. al, Fayette Circuit Court, 98-CI-2228.
A renter was doing caulking work on a ladder when the ladder collapsed underneath her. One month passed before she first sought treatment for her injuries. She subsequently sued her landlord for her medical treatment and lost wages, as well as $100,000 in suffering. WMR Defense argued that not only had the plaintiff disregarded her own safety, but also pointed out the delay in treatment to the jury. The jury gave her $11,500, rejecting her claims for impairment and suffering. Kelly v. Phelps, Fayette Circuit Court, 01 CI 1919.