Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01514/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01514-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEANDER GREEN,

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant(s). /

No. C 05-1514 MEJ

ORDER RE: STAIR INSPECTION

The Court is in receipt of the parties' joint letter, filed May 19, 2006, concerning plaintiff

Leander Green's request to inspect the stair on which he slipped at defendant United States' Oakland

postal facility. Although Plaintiff's safety engineer, Dr. Robert Liptai, inspected the stair in

November 2003, he subsequently passed away in December 2005. Since the time Dr. Liptai

inspected the stair, the postal facility covered it with a slip resistant tape, whereas at the time of the

slip it was bare metal. Plaintiff seeks permission to have his expert remove a two-to-three square

inch portion of the tape to test the bare metal. After testing, Plaintiff's expert will restore the stair

with a commercial grade anti-skid material, or alternatively Plaintiff will pay the Postal Service to

replace the anti-skid material. Although Dr. Liptai tested the bare metal in 2003, Plaintiff argues

that a gap in Dr. Liptai's notations could render an opinion based on his information susceptible to a

Duabert challenge. 

In response, Defendant argues that it is unclear why Plaintiff's current expert is unable to rely

on previous expert's testing given that the safety engineer in 2003 performed the same tests. 

Defendant further argues that if the Court permits Plaintiff's expert to remove the tape, it should also

Case 3:05-cv-01514-MEJ Document 34 Filed 05/23/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

order Plaintiff to defend and indemnify the Postal Service for claims arising from the condition of

the stair for a two year period.

Upon review of the parties' arguments, the Court finds good cause exists to permit Plaintiff's

new expert to remove a small strip of the anti-skid material to test the bare metal. Prior to removing

the strip, the parties shall agree upon the commercial grade anti-skid material that will be used to

restore the stair after testing. Immediately after testing, Plaintiff's expert shall restore the stair with

the agreed-upon material. The parties shall also agree upon an expert to inspect the stair after

restoration, and said expert shall inspect the stair, at Plaintiff's expense, on the same day Plaintiff's

expert applies the material. Plaintiff need not agree to Defendant's proposed 2-3 year indemnity

proposal; however, Plaintiff shall be liable for any claims that arise as a result of the condition of the

stair from the time Plaintiff's expert removes the strip of anti-skid material to the time that the

agreed-upon expert completes an inspection of the restored stair and determines it meets all relevant

safety standards. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 23, 2006 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01514-MEJ Document 34 Filed 05/23/06 Page 2 of 2