King County Trial Defense Verdict in Multi-Defendant Commercial Liability Case

Claims Alleged: Commercial Liability – Premise Liability/Bodily Injury

Injuries Alleged: Broken ankle (fracture) sustained from a slip & fall

Admitted Liability: No

Overview: Smith Freed Eberhard Partners Joy Lee, Cliff Wilson and Senior Associate Paige Kolbrick recently secured a complete defense verdict in a high-stakes commercial liability case involving a slip-and-fall incident.  Even against difficult optics and an “empty chair” co-defendant, Joy’s team successfully defended the client by framing the case around control, duty, and exercising reasonable care for one’s own safety.

The Background: In this case, Plaintiff alleged that she suffered a broken ankle after tripping on the last step of a sloped stairwell in the parking garage of nearby apartments, holding our client—a hotel that reserved a handful of parking spaces monthly—responsible under both a theory of premises liability and general negligence. Liability was firmly disputed, as the parking garage structure itself was neither owned nor managed by our client.

Plaintiff sought over $700,000 in damages, including $112,000 of undisputed medical expenses, and approximately $600,000 in non-economic damages for pain and suffering.

Plaintiff’s Theme: Plaintiff’s counsel portrayed our client as the primary party responsible for her fall, urging the jury to assign them 80% of the fault and only 20% to the settled co-defendant (the owner and manager of the parking garage). The narrative focused on the severity of the injury and positioned our client as the “main target” given Plaintiff was a hotel guest and our client had offered her that specific parking option in the garage.

Our Strategy: Joy’s team quickly identified a strong lack-of-duty defense under Plaintiff’s premise liability argument, as our client had no ownership or management control over the stairwell where the incident occurred. While a motion for summary judgment was denied, the team maintained a consistent focus on the lack-of-control argument and highlighted Plaintiff’s own failure to exercise reasonable care, as her view of the stairwell was admittedly obstructed by the numerous items she was carrying.

After a failed mediation, co-defendants settled privately, leaving our client to face trial alone. The defense leveraged strategic motions, including a successful motion in limine to exclude evidence of speculative future treatment costs, and presented compelling trial advocacy to keep the jury focused on duty, control, and personal responsibility.

The Outcome: After a half-day of deliberation, the jury returned a complete defense verdict, finding that our client bore no liability (was not negligent) for causing Plaintiff’s injuries. This result demonstrates the firm’s expertise in defending commercial clients in complex premises liability claims and the value of framing the case around the proper legal issues to achieve favorable outcomes at trial.