Extended Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type
Extended Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type

Hancock v. Albert Einstein Med. Ctr – Case Brief Summary (Pennsylvania)

In Hancock v. Albert Einstein Med. Ctr., 23 Phila County Rptr 41 [Pa Ct Com Pl 1991], plaintiff tripped and fell while walking on a ramp.

At trial, the plaintiff called an engineering expert who inspected the accident scene five years after the fact and consequently the only evidence with respect to the ramp's condition at the time of the accident came from the plaintiff herself.

The court opined that the plaintiff "who claims no expertise regarding paints, surfacing or ramps ... could only say that the ramp appeared smooth and was slippery . . . She could not testify what the ramp coating was composed of, nor did she state its slope . . . Clearly the plaintiff's testimony was not sufficient foundation upon which expert testimony could rest." (Id. at 43.)