Stamford (203) 325-4491
Bridgeport (203) 386-9844
Danbury (203) 816-8476
Greenwich (203) 489-2952
Hartford (860) 785-6585

New Haven (203) 916-5796
New London (860) 785-6581
Waterbury (203) 916-5785
Westport (203) 349-8154
Out of State (866) 248-8744

Call Stamford (203) 325-4491
Bridgeport (203) 386-9844
Danbury (203) 816-8476
Greenwich (203) 489-2952
Hartford (860) 785-6585

New Haven (203) 916-5796
New London (860) 785-6581
Waterbury (203) 916-5785
Westport (203) 349-8154
Out of State (866) 248-8744

Condo Resident Suffers Severe Injuries After Break-In

Case Study

The plaintiff, a female tenant in a Connecticut condominium community, was attacked violently at night while asleep in her bedroom.  She retained SGT partner Paul Slager, who represents many victim of serious crimes in civil lawsuits throughout Connecticut.  Slager investigated and found powerful evidence that the attack would have been prevented had the condominium association acted reasonably.  As a result, Slager sued and litigated on behalf of the tenant, who ultimately won $3.9 million as compensation for her serious personal injuries.

The assailant was a teenage resident of the condominium community and a neighbor of the victim. He was well known to the condominium board of directors, the outside property manager and the private security firm hired to provide security services as a troubled teenager whose past conduct posed a threat to the safety of others in the community.  The plaintiff, however, was totally unaware of this prior threatening behavior before the night of the attack.

Condo_feature

During deposition testimony and in documents uncovered in the case, Slager uncovered extensive evidence that members of the condominium board of directors were aware of the teenage assailant’s long history of prior threatening behavior within the condominium community.  He discovered that the teenager had been fined numerous times by the board for disruptive behavior.  Slager also discovered powerful evidence that the defendants had been aware of incidents before the night the plaintiff was attacked, where the teenager had vandalized property, broken into public areas of the community and even broken into the unit of another female resident late at night while she was home alone.

Despite this knowledge and knowing that the plaintiff was a single woman living alone in the condominium unit immediately next to the assailant, the board, the property manager and the private security firm never warned the plaintiff of the information they had about her neighbor.  Nor did they take any steps to remove the teenager from the community or ensure he would no longer threaten other residents. As a result, the plaintiff was unknowingly an easy victim for the assailant.

Slager uncovered and presented powerful evidence that the association, through its board of directors, the property manager and the outside security firm failed to act reasonably when they decided not to warn the plaintiff or other residents about the security threat the teenager posed to the community and when they failed to take other basic steps to minimize the chances he would harm someone in the community.  He argued that all the defendants had failed to act reasonably under the circumstances, and that their careless decisions had caused the plaintiff to suffer serious and lasting injuries.

As a result of Slager’s efforts, the defendants paid $3.9 million to compensate the plaintiff for her injuries. Although no amount of money will ever change what happened, the award provided the plaintiff with much needed financial assistance that has allowed her to receive the counseling and treatment she needs and to provide her with financial security moving forward.  And although the defendants denied the plaintiff’s claims to the end, the plaintiff also considers the significant award amount a tacit acknowledgment by the defendants of their responsibility for failing to take any basic steps to help prevent such a terrible event from happening.

*The content of this page has not been approved by the Court nor does it constitute legal advice. It is for the purpose of providing general information only.