No Punitives for Missing Handrail
By Deborah Elkins
Published: March 20, 2012
Published: March 20, 2012
 |
| Sample Basement Handrail |
A prospective buyer going through defendant’s property who alleges she fell as she was descending a stairwell with a handrail that did not extend to the last three steps can sue for negligence based on the state building code, but the Alexandria U.S. District Court dismisses her claim for punitive damages alleging a home inspector inspected the property several months earlier and found the handrail was inadequate under the building code.
Virginia courts have found that the Virginia General Assembly has amended the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code on many occasions but has never provided a private right of action. Virginia courts have consistently held that a violation of a building code or any other statute enacted to protect health, safety or welfare is negligence per se. To show negligence per se, a plaintiff must produce evidence supporting a determination that the opposing party violated a statute enacted for public safety, that the proponent belongs to the class of persons for whose benefit the statute was enacted and the harm suffered was of the type against which the statute was designed to protect, and that the statutory violation was a proximate cause of the injury.
The legislative purpose underlying the VUSBC is to protect the health, safety and welfare of the residents of this commonwealth. Here the complaint alleges defendant violated the VUSBC by failing to maintain a stair rail on the three-step landing. And that as a result, plaintiff, a resident of Virginia, suffered personal injury. These alleged facts support the inference that defendant violated the statute and that the harm in this case is the type against which the VUSBC was designed to protect.
However, the court dismisses plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages. Plaintiff fails to allege a set of facts from which one can infer that defendant acted with purpose or design or with reckless indifference to the consequences. The only seemingly relevant allegation in the complaint is that a home inspector found the stairway handrail length was insufficient under the VUSBC. Plaintiff fails to make any allegation as to the timing of the home inspector’s conclusions or defendant’s knowledge of the conclusion. The court finds this statement alone does not rise to the level where one could infer that defendant had conscious awareness of the danger, and probable consequences of his actions, and recklessly decided to proceed notwithstanding that awareness.
Finally, the court denies defendant’s motion for a more definite statement on plaintiff’s request for a monetary award of “not less than $150,000.” The court does not find in the language of FRCP 54(c) or in any precedent that plaintiff is required to “put a ceiling on his claim for monetary relief.”
Foglia v. Clapper (Cacheris) No. 1:12cv104, March 7, 20120; USDC at Alexandria, Va. VLW 012-3-099, 12 pp.
Please contact us if you need legal help.
Tucker Griffin Barnes P.C.
Charlottesville, VA
434-973-7474
No comments:
Post a Comment