Stone Harbor Not Paying Damages in Fall Accident

STONE HARBOR – An appeals court decided in favor of the borough as a defendant in a slip-and-fall claim for an accident that occurred on borough property.
[RETRACTED], 57, lost an appeal to a summary judgment in a lawsuit against Stone Harbor in a complaint seeking damages under the Tort Claims Act (TCA) for injuries she suffered.
According to court documents, she suffered a fractured left elbow, fractured nose, fractured left fourth toe and soft tissue injuries to her left knee in her fall, which was allegedly caused by a dangerous condition on borough public property.
The decision does not state where the accident occurred nor alleged dangerous condition.
She did not suffer a “permanent loss of a bodily function or permanent disfigurement,” a June 25 Superior Court Appellate Division decision stated. “Where a plaintiff can function in his or her employment or as a homemaker, a permanent limitation of motion is not substantial.”
At the time of the accident [RETRACTED] was employed as an environmental specialist with the Environmental Protection Agency.
She testified Feb. 11 that her arm aches down to the wrist when she is on the computer at work but she had not missed any work since three months after her fall.
She testified she could no longer carry everything downstairs to her basement laundry in one trip, mow the lawn or carry out her garbage because of her injuries. Also, she said she no longer takes long walks due to pain in her knee and she cannot ride her bike because of pain in her elbow.
After considering her testimony and the medical evidence of her doctors, the decision states the court is “not able to conclude that a jury could find the injuries are substantial” because injuries “must also render a bodily organ or limb substantially useless but for modern medical replacement parts and a permanent and substantial injury must manifest itself physically.”
An amended order denying the plaintiff’s motion was entered Feb. 7, 2008.
[RETRACTED] then motioned for reconsideration later that month.
The judge decided the plaintiff “had merely reargued the same point as the initial motion” without new information therefore, the plaintiff didn’t meet the standard for reconsideration and the motion was denied.