Jury decides liability for mall owners after serious brain injury. Hedges v. Planned Sec. Serv., 140 N.Y.S.3d 487 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

The case of Marion Hedges highlights the responsibility of property owners and managers to address known risks in public spaces. Effective safety management requires proactive measures to prevent foreseeable harm, especially when prior incidents signal potential dangers. This case demonstrates the serious consequences of neglecting these duties, where inadequate precautions contributed to a tragic and preventable outcome. It serves as a reminder of the critical need for vigilant risk assessment and implementation of safety protocols to protect individuals in shared environments.

Background Facts
Marion Hedges, while at a shopping mall owned by Tiago Holdings, LLC, sustained catastrophic injuries when struck by the shopping cart. Prior incidents of similar dangerous behavior had been reported, including objects thrown from upper levels of the mall. Despite these warnings, the mall owners and their contracted security provider, Planned Security Service, Inc. (PSS), failed to implement preventive measures such as higher railings or increased security patrols.

Hedges’ injuries included severe brain damage, affecting her vision, coordination, balance, and speech. The impact on her life was profound, necessitating long-term medical care and home assistance. These failures in maintaining a safe environment became the basis for her legal claim. Hedges file a personal injury lawsuit against the mall and the security firm. The jury attributed liability as follows:

65% to the mall owners (Tiago Holdings, LLC): The owners were deemed primarily responsible for neglecting their duty to address ongoing safety risks.
25% to PSS: The security firm had a role in managing the premises but lacked the authority to make structural or significant policy changes.
10% to the boys (nonparty tortfeasors): As direct actors, they bore some responsibility for the incident.

Damages awarded to Hedges included $14.5 million for future pain and suffering, $1.9 million for lost earnings, and $3,175,500 for a home health aide. Her husband received $2 million for loss of services and companionship. Defendants appealed, claiming the awards were excessive and liability misapportioned.

Key Legal Issues
The court evaluated two central questions:

Did the evidence support the jury’s apportionment of liability?
Were the damages awarded proportionate to the injuries suffered?

Court’s Decision
The court upheld the jury’s findings, affirming that:

The mall owners were aware of prior risks and failed to mitigate them, contributing significantly to the unsafe conditions.
PSS’s limited authority reduced their share of liability, but their failure to enforce adequate security measures warranted accountability.
The damages reflected the severity and lifelong impact of Hedges’ injuries, aligning with legal standards for personal injury compensation.

This case underscores the critical role of property owners in safeguarding public spaces. Preventable incidents, particularly in areas with a history of dangerous behavior, highlight the need for proactive measures like improved infrastructure and effective security. Courts scrutinize such failures when determining liability.

Conclusion
The Marion Hedges case demonstrates the complexities of premises liability, especially where multiple parties share responsibility. If you or a loved one has suffered a brain injury due to someone else’s negligence, an experienced New York brain injury lawyer can provide critical guidance. Contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates to explore your legal options and seek the compensation you deserve.