Slip and Fall Accident Case Involving a Plaintiff Falling on a Train Platform*

The fall caused his left leg to get stuck in the gap. Plaintiff Paddington claims that defendant LTA was negligent in the maintenance and operation of the subway station and the train.

Defendant LTA states the gap isn't evidence of negligence so long as the gap isn't any greater than reasonably necessary to run the train cars (it was less than 6 inches).

It further pointed out the plaintiff had not provided a specific measurement of the gap in this slip and fall accident case. It was their opinion the plaintiff did not have any material facts to try a case and the defendant didn't have a cause of action.

Defendant LTA offered proof of qualified immunity because the plans and designs a government adopts aren't a basis for a tort action so long as they act rationally. It was stated the gap was necessary and reasonable for public safety.

The plaintiff replied the LTA aren't immune because the determination of their liability in gap cases is the "foreseeable harm" of a specific gap. Plus plaintiff Paddington's thigh measured over 7 inches so the gap had to have been at least that wide to get stuck.

The court stated that a decision made on the basis of statements and evidence presented for the record without a trial wasn't possible if there was any doubt about the existence of issues to be tried. If the plaintiff can't make the case for a cause of action, the motion for judgment in their favor will be denied.

The judge in this slip and fall accident case indicated the evidence submitted by the LTA about the gap size etc. was inadmissible because it was not certified or sworn. In addition the pictures of the gap were useless.

Policy documents about gap measurements offered in evidence by LTA were also unsworn and uncertified and therefore inadmissible.

In conclusion the court felt there were many issues that needed to be tried. Some of these issues included: the exact dimensions of the gap in question, if it was dangerous (making the platform unsafe), if the platform was maintained properly, and if the LTA breached a duty of care to the plaintiff.

All motions for instant judgment in this slip and fall accident case were denied and the court found the plaintiff did have a cause of action against the LTA.