Police detected a “strong smell of alcohol” on 21-year-old Alexandra Shaw’s breath when they rescued her after she took a 40-foot fall through a grate in a Princeton University bell tower that was closed for renovations. But no blood test was done, Shaw claimed to have had only one beer, and the two contractors she sued settled the suit for $350,000 rather than risk a greater liability finding from a jury.
“The young lady fell and she was rather seriously injured,” [defense attorney Michael] O’Mara said. But the area where the accident occurred was not open to the public and “a person of common sense would not have entered. It looked like the bowels of the earth.”
Neither his client nor the co-defendant were responsible for the condition of the grate Shaw stepped through, O’Mara said. But there was a possibility that the jury might find liability so a compromise was reached.
(Linda Stein, “$350,000 settles tower plunge suit”, The Trenton Times, Mar. 22 (h/t P.E.); Bill Beaver, “Undergraduate falls climbing in chapel turret, injures leg”, Daily Princetonian, Dec. 14, 2001).
One Comment
New Jersey is long past the point where compensation for injury is determined by fault. Yes, the law books still talk about fault, but the way it works is, if you’re hurt you get paid. I haven’t seen the most recent numbers, but I believe that less than 1 percent of all personal injury cases are tried. An equally small percentage are dismissed on summary judgment. The rest settle, and everyone in the system is happy with that, including the plaintiff’s bar, the defense lawyers, and the judges. In the process, of course, we reward irresponsible, characterless behavior such as that of Ms. Shaw, who possibly should have know that trespassing into a construction zone, in the dark, while drunk, wasn’t a good idea. And what about the injured person who has the character to take responsibility for his actions, and who actually believes that you don’t sue if you’re at fault? In New Jersey I believe that the term for that person is “sucker.”