Incident Overview
On March 5, 2020, John Pesillo sustained serious injuries while visiting an auto body shop located at 1801 Thomaston Avenue in Waterbury, Connecticut. The premises were owned and managed by David Gravel and operated by his business, Gravel’s Automotive Concepts, Inc. At approximately 2:00 p.m., Pesillo entered the property as a business invitee during regular operating hours, anticipating a safe and secure environment in accordance with legal expectations.
Hazardous Conditions
While walking toward a doorway inside the shop, Pesillo encountered an unexpected hazard. The stairway at the threshold was improperly constructed, with a rise and run that failed to meet building code requirements. This created a hidden tripping hazard. Critically, there were no warning signs, barricades, or other indicators to alert visitors of the danger.
Despite having control over the premises, Gravel and his company did not conduct routine inspections, nor did they take steps to repair or secure the defective stairs. The condition was either known to them or should have been known through reasonable diligence. Their failure to address the unsafe conditions directly led to Pesillo’s fall.
Resulting Injuries
As a result of the fall, Pesillo suffered severe physical injuries, including a fractured left femur and trauma to his right hip. He was diagnosed with bruising, confusion, and impaired balance. His injuries affected nerves, joints, and soft tissues, resulting in ongoing pain and restricted mobility. These physical limitations significantly interfered with his ability to perform daily tasks and maintain independence.
Medical treatment involved emergency care, medication, and a recommendation for long-term rehabilitation. The injuries may lead to permanent impairment and chronic discomfort, altering his quality of life moving forward.
Damages
John Pesillo sought over $15,000 in damages, excluding interest and court costs. He claimed compensation for past and future medical expenses, including hospital care, prescriptions, and doctor visits.
He also pursued damages for pain, suffering, emotional distress, and loss of quality of life. His injuries made routine tasks and mobility difficult, disrupting his daily life.
The complaint alleged that both defendants breached their duty to maintain safe premises, directly causing his injuries and resulting losses.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: John Pesillo
Counsel for Plaintiff: The Haymond Law Firm P.C.
Expert Witness for Plaintiff: Mark W. Tebbets
Defendants: David Gravel | Gravel’s Automotive Concepts, Inc.
Counsel for Defendants: Law Offices of Cynthia M. Garraty
Expert Witness for Defendant: Carl S. Cianci
Claims
Count One – Negligence Against David Gravel
David Gravel owned and controlled the premises at 1801 Thomaston Avenue. As the property owner, he had a duty to maintain a safe environment for business invitees like John Pesillo. Gravel failed to inspect or repair a hazardous doorway with defective or missing stairs. The step violated building codes and lacked warnings. Despite knowing, or having reason to know, of the danger, he took no action. His negligence directly caused Pesillo’s fall and injuries.
Count Two – Negligence Against Gravel’s Automotive Concepts, Inc.
Gravel’s Automotive Concepts, Inc., which operated on the property, shared responsibility for its upkeep. The company failed to inspect, repair, or warn of the defective step, which did not meet safety standards. It also lacked proper safety protocols or trained staff to monitor hazards. This negligence contributed to the unsafe condition and Pesillo’s injuries.
Legal Costs
The Plaintiff also seeks recovery of legal expenses incurred as a result of the Defendants’ negligence.
Defense
David Gravel and Gravel’s Automotive Concepts, Inc. denied ownership of the premises, asserting that the property was legally owned by David Gravel Realty, LLC. They also disputed that John Pesillo was a business invitee at the time of the incident.
The defendants denied the existence of any hazardous conditions and disclaimed responsibility for the alleged defective stairs or lack of safety warnings. They claimed insufficient knowledge of several allegations and required the plaintiff to prove his case.
Additionally, they argued that any injuries Pesillo sustained were due to his own negligence. They alleged he failed to watch his step, entered a restricted area, disregarded verbal and written warnings, and acted while distracted and emotionally agitated. According to the defense, these actions, not any negligence on their part, were the direct cause of the incident.
Jury Verdict
On February 27, 2025, the jury ruled in favor of the defendants, David Gravel and Gravel’s Automotive Concepts, Inc. The jury found that John Pesillo failed to prove his negligence claims. Judgment was entered against the plaintiff, with no liability assigned to the defendants, bringing the case to a close.
