The Haggard Law Firm’s Pedro Echarte and Co-Counsel Michael Flanagan of Flanagan & Bodenheimer have obtained a $4.2 Million settlement in a negligent security wrongful death case in Broward County, Florida.
On December 8, 2018, Dwight Higgins was shot and killed at the Lauderhill Point Apartments (f/k/a Driftwood). That evening Mr. Higgins went to the apartment complex with a friend to visit his friend’s girlfriend. Sometime after they arrived, his friend left the complex and Mr. Higgins was outside in the common areas. Four armed assailants approached him in a robbery attempt. Mr. Higgins tried to run away from the assailants. The attackers began shooting at him while chasing Higgins throughout the complex. The 27-year old was shot and was later pronounced dead shortly after arriving at the hospital.
The Plaintiff (Mr. Higgins’ mother and the Personal Representative of his Estate) brought this negligent security action on behalf of her son’s statutory survivors – his mother and father. Echarte and Flanagan alleged that security was wholly inadequate on the night of the subject incident in light of the long history of both violent and non-violent crime at the property. This included, but was not limited to, three shootings in the three months leading up to Mr. Higgins’ attempted armed robbery and murder. In fact, several Lauderhill Police Department officials, including the Chief of Police, testified in the case and discussed the long history of issues at the apartment complex.
Despite this history of crime, the apartment complex did not have working access control or any form of manned security. The Plaintiff’s security expert said the property had such an extensive history of crime that it needed a “show of force” with respect to security to get the crime under control – this included 24/7 armed security guards (more than one per shift) and intermittent off-duty police patrols. However, the property had neither. In addition, Echarte and Flanagan argued that the layout of the complex made it very difficult to not only secure, but also created additional risk for those within the property due to the of natural surveillance (a security concept referred to as Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design). The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants failed to recognize and address this additional security risk, which only compounded the problems it was having at the property.
The Defendants argued they could not afford manned security and that certain manned security (i.e., off-duty police patrols) were not available to them. The Plaintiffs were able to prove that neither of these defenses had any merit. The Defendants also argued that Mr. Higgins was a trespasser at the time of the incident and not an invitee, but they lost their summary judgment on the same issue.
