Empty Chair Issue

An interesting issue popped up in one of my cases today. I represent a nice woman in her late 50's who suffered a serious cervical fracture when she tripped on a defect at a local college and fell down 13 concrete stairs. I filed suit against the college and things were moving along pretty well. Unfortunately my client learned that she had potentially terminal medical condition[unrelated to the fall], so I moved to advance the case for trial. At about the same time, the college filed third party claims against 4 other defendants, seeking to get them to contribute to any verdict or settlement. Those new third party defendants appeared at the hearing and vehemently objected to my request to advance the case, saying it is unfair to them to have to put their case together in 30-60 days. The judge agreed and suggested that perhaps I could sever the cases. He noted however, that if I do so, I would only try the case against the college and the college would be allowed to suggest other parties, not at trial, are responsible[otherwise known as the "empty chair defense"]. Lots of lawyers are adamant about avoiding the "empty chair" at trial - but I am think it wouldn't be much of a factor in my case. The evidence has shown the college was clearly on notice about the defect and simply didn't do anything about it. My inclination is to go forward and try the case against the college alone and let the chips fall where they may.

In addition, it never ceases to amaze me how defense lawyers need months and years to put together a defense in a very straightforward premises liability case.