Del Rio Apartment Complex Owners Ignored Multiple Requests from Staff to Increase Security
Tampa – The companies that once owned the Avesta Del Rio Apartment Complex have agreed to pay the family of 23-year-old murder victim Damian Bowie $1.8 million to settle a negligent security lawsuit. The lawsuit filed by Douglas McCarron of The Haggard Law Firm (www.haggardlawfirm.com) alleged that the deadly 2014 shooting that claimed Bowie’s life could have been prevented if complex ownership took action after multiple requests by staff members to better secure the property.
On March 2, 2014, Bowie visited the Del Rio apartments (5013 E. Sligh Avenue, Tampa) to spend time with friends before going to pick up his son Damian Jr. But, shortly before 4 p.m. that day, the father of three was assaulted, shot and killed on the property.
“Through the course of our investigation, which included testimony by the defendant’s property manager, it was clear that the employees at the property were pleading for more security and consistently telling upper management how people’s lives were are risk. Instead of acting responsibly, the defendant simply turned a blind eye” said McCarron.
The lawsuit against 5013 Sligh LLC and Avesta Homes on behalf of the victim’s mother and his three children Damian Jr. (5), Damion (3) and Sincere (2 – born two months after his father was killed), alleged the property’s owners knew the area and property were considered high crime areas. McCarron adds, “unfortunately their inaction allowed this tragedy to occur and now three young boys will never see their father again.”
The lawsuit highlights:
Testimony from a property manager and documented crime statistics that confirm the complex and area that surrounds is a high crime area.
An email sent by Kerrie Richardson, property manager of the complex at the time of the shooting, to the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Department requesting an off duty police officer (sent six months before the murder) because of the amount of crime
An email from Richardson to corporate for directions on what to do with a tenant that asked for termination of their lease after they were robbed at gunpoint and had their car broken into in just three months.
A request by Richardson to property owners asking for expanded security for daytime hours. Bowie was murdered at 4 p.m.
The victim’s family members hope new attention on this case will help police. No one has been charged in the crime.
It should be noted that the defendants in this case currently do NOT own the Avesta Del Rio Complex.
The Association for Safe International Travel reports that 37,000 people die in car accidents per year in the United States while another 2.35 million are injured or disabled. An estimated 180,000 people are driving for Uber. That number continues to grow. So with this kind of volume and activity it is inevitable that the number of accidents involving this driving service will rise.
So if a personal injury attorney’s client was injured in a crash involving Uber, what should the lawyer consider when litigating that case?
That is the topic of discussion that will be lead by Haggard Law attorneys Jason Brenner and Todd Michaels during this month’s Florida Justice Association Masters of Justice CLE program.
Uber Duber Do…Your Client Was in an Accident with Uber, Now What Do You Do? is one of the sessions that will be offered to attendees of the program as part of the Auto Negligence Seminar to be conducted on Wednesday, September 28th. There are a few more spots available for this seminar. To learn more about it and register click here. The FJA Masters of Justice Program will be held in Orlando from September 28th through the 30th.
Attending this year’s FJA Masters of Justice program is a great way to renew the excitement and focus on your mission as a personal injury attorney. Make plans NOW to register to attend to ensure you have the strategies and techniques in your toolbox that have proven to work for other attorneys in civil litigation cases. You’ll be sure to take away valuable information and innovative ideas that can immediately aid you in your efforts to assist your clients in their cases.
The Haggard Law Firm’s Douglas McCarron will be a feature presenter during The 2016 National Crime Victim Bar Association’s National Conference. The Conference will be held in Philadelphia on September 19-21 in conjunction with the National Center for Victims of Crime’s 2016 National Training Institute. The Institute brings up to 1,001 civil attorneys, victim advocates, criminal justice professionals and law enforcement officers to share their knowledge and experience across disciplines.
The training institute emphasizes a multidisciplinary approach to sharing promising practices, current research, and effective programs and policies that are victim-centered, practice-based, and research-informed. The Institute’s forum allows for law enforcement, victim service professionals, allied practitioners, policymakers, and researchers to share current developments and build new collaborations.
McCarron’s presentation: Negligent Security Case Gameplan: “Blocking & Tackling Fundamentals Mixed with Razzle Dazzle.”
This highly demonstrative and interactive presentation will highlight what every Victim’s lawyers must know presenting their Negligent Security case. In addition, with using the results of over 30 Negligent Security case verdicts and one hundred Mock trials, the presentation will cover “ Cutting Edge Strategies” that the Defense never see coming.
Since 2007, The Haggard Law Firm has litigated more than 150 negligent security/premises liability cases which have resulted in more than $350,000,000 in verdicts and settlements to our clients in those cases.
Haggard Law Attorney Christopher Marlowe was interviewed and quoted in a just-released Bloomberg Businessweek article highlighting how Walmart’s cost-cutting measures may be directly related to an increased rate of crime at its stores nationwide. From rape to shoplifting, to kidnapping and murder, the article lays out how police are trying to corral the rampant crime in many of the nation’s number one retailer’s locations. A recent example in the last few weeks, police in Buffalo found a meth lab operating underground of a local Walmart store.
Marlowe fought Walmart for several years in a lawsuit he filed in 2010 on behalf of a woman who was abducted outside a store in DeFuniak Springs, Florida, and repeatedly raped. Marlowe discussed how Walmart made every legal maneuver to avoid releasing its in-house crime statistics.
From the article, Walmart’s Out-of-Control Crime Problem Is Driving Police Crazy By Shannon Pettypiece and David Voreacos:
Walmart’s lawyers typically argue that the company couldn’t have foreseen the crime in question and that it took reasonable steps to keep customers safe. It tries at every opportunity to keep its crime database secret. Even in litigation, when it must produce company records under court seal, its lawyers have wrangled for months or even years to limit access to its records, arguing the information is proprietary. “Nothing compares to the way Walmart litigates cases,” says attorney Christopher Marlowe. He fought Walmart for several years over a lawsuit he filed in 2010 on behalf of a woman who was abducted outside a store in DeFuniak Springs, Fla., and repeatedly raped. Marlowe said in a court filing that he learned only in 2013 of the database, which documented “precisely the sort of incidents” he sought for more than two years. Walmart’s lawyer, he said, “led everyone to believe that crime data retrieval was a great mystery—a query of inconceivable proportions.” Walmart denied liability in the case. The company eventually settled for an undisclosed sum.
Opa Locka, Florida – The owners of the Top Value Supermarket in Opa Locka have agreed to a payout of $1 million to the Estate of Miguel Pilotos, who was gunned down on the property during a robbery Aug. 21, 2013.
The 71-year-old man was simply picking up groceries when he was shot at the supermarket located on Northwest 137th street and northwest 27th avenue. The crime was caught on camera. The gunman rode up to the victim’s car on a bicycle and pulled out his weapon and shot the husband and father in the neck. Pilotos, who had under $20 on him when he was killed, had been with his wife Aleida for 25 years. He emigrated from Cuba 19 years ago.
The lawyer for the Pilotos family, Todd Michaels of The Haggard Law Firm, says the crime was predictable and preventable. “At the time of his murder, Miguel Pilotos was the third Top Value customer robbed and shot and the second one killed in that parking lot, in six months” says Michaels. He adds “despite the previous crimes, and the widespread knowledge the business was located in a high-crime area, the supermarket did not alter security in the parking lot in any way.”
The Haggard Law Firm’s William Haggard, Michael Haggard, Douglas McCarron, Christopher Marlowe, Todd Michaels and James Blecke have all been named to the 2016 Super Lawyers List.
Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement.
The patented selection process includes independent research, peer nominations, and peer evaluations.
Haggard Law Conducts Negligent Security Seminar During the FJA Convention this Week
Todd Michaels lead a seminar yesterday during the 2016 Florida Justice Association’s Annual Convention in Palm Beach. Michaels discussed the ins and outs of trying a negligent security case in Florida.
The seminar was part of the FJA’s Young Lawyers Seminar Series. Michaels is currently an FJA board member, the Miami-Dade County Vanguard Chair and will begin a term on the organization’s Executive Committee next week.
Recently, Michaels delivered a $1 million settlement to the family of Miguel Pilotos in a negligent security case. The 71-year-old was gunned down in a supermarket parking lot in 2013. In the last 10 years, The Haggard Law Firm has handled over 150 negligent security cases and delivered over $340 million in verdicts and settlements in those cases.
When you argue that your client’s injuries could have been prevented through the use of reasonable security measures, the defendant will claim those measures are excessive or unnecessary. So what are reasonable measures, and how can you help the jury view the case through your eyes? You must first go to the crime scene and begin reviewing any security efforts that the defendant undertook.
A crucial part of evidence development in these cases is examining the premises and putting the security measures into context. For example, a client was stabbed to death in his aunt’s apartment complex parking lot as he went to the vending machines near the community swimming pool.1 The complex gave a rent-free unit to a courtesy security officer who was also a local police officer and claimed to perform three daily patrols around the property with an enormous dog and a pistol. She also submitted observation reports to management. I was deflated by this proactive security regime until the officer and on-site managers were deposed.
Through public record requests, I obtained the officer’s call schedule for her official police duties for the previous three years. The three daily patrols she claimed she conducted could not be reconciled with her documented obligations for the city police department. The nuisance crimes of vandalism and drug use at the community swimming pool were incompatible with her insistence that once she locked the common area amenities at night, the property was under control. And somehow her fellow officers failed to inform her of four robberies and a carjacking that occurred at the complex while she lived there. At trial, the plaintiff’s counsel was able to expose this façade, and the jury found the complex was 100 percent liable.
In another case, my client was shot in the face at a gas station near the Miami-Dade County Fairgrounds during the annual fair. My first few visits to the property were unremarkable, so I wondered how we could convince any jury that this ordinary gas station should have employed security. So we waited to visit again until the next year’s county fair.
By comparing surveillance video from a normal Friday night with video from the same time and date during the following year’s county fair, we were able to show the massive increase in foot and vehicle traffic during the fair. We did not advocate that there was anything wrong with the gas station itself – but we explained that for two weeks each year, it assumed an entirely different criminal profile, and increased security measures should have been deployed. Understanding your site will help you stay focused on the defendant’s duty to appreciate the foreseeable risk and act on it.
(Pictured: Attorney Christopher Marlowe)
Sometimes, when security is compromised, there will be a debate about whether armed or unarmed security was appropriate for a property. The jury is unlikely to punish a defendant for choosing unarmed over armed guards if the choice was based on intelligence and made after informed deliberations.
Other security decisions become central to the case. Premises owners and managers often use security vendors, who make recommendations for protecting the property against crime. The vendor invariably will have suggested implementing the most comprehensive security system, but the defendant chose a lesser program due to cost. Driving a wedge between the vendor and the property manager becomes very important, and you can do this with the assistance of either entity’s former employees. Defendants usually are not on the same page as their vendors about crime on the premises, the necessary remedies, or the rationale for the choices made.
Familiarity with crimes that occurred on the property is fundamental. Do not rely on crime statistics or grids. Read every police report from the property, going back at least three years from your client’s assault. What may appear to be a simple property crime can yield the greatest notice and foreseeability witnesses. For example, a police report showing theft of a cell phone from a vehicle may appear trivial and unrelated on its face. However, the victim of that property crime often will have reported it to management and felt violated by that intrusion, especially if it happened more than once. The best witness regarding notice of on-premises crimes may be a robbery victim who constantly complained to management.
As the defendant tries to distract your attention from the core issues, refocus the case on specific criminal incidents and what the defendant failed to do in response to each. Make sure to use police reports when deposing the defendant – it will force them to admit, repeatedly, that they either did not know of the crime or that they did not make any changes in response to it. Specific crimes will help you show the jury that your case is not about crime generally or in the city where the property is located – it is about crime on this specific property.
Negligent security cases can consume thousands of hours from inception to conclusion. You must contend with both criminal and civil investigations, witnesses who may reasonably fear retribution, properties in crime-ridden areas, and even clients whose presence at the time of the incident concerns jurors. To get past these difficulties, it is crucial to maintain your focus on proving that the defendant’s security measures were inadequate.
Learn more about The Haggard Law Firm by clicking here
Notes:
1. Almaguer v. MIG Pines Dev., Ltd., No. 08-50972 CA 21 (Fla., Broward Co. Cir., Mar. 25, 2010).
Drowning is the leading cause of death for young children in Florida. Communities throughout the state are filled with rivers, lakes, canals and streams. Waterfront property is attractive, and residential communities everywhere hold out their frontage along a body of water as an asset. While often mindful of the risks posed by swimming pools, too many residential owners are not aware of the risks associated with other bodies of water.
A residential property owner in Florida will generally not be held responsible for a drowning in a natural body of water that simply is adjacent to the property.
However, encouraging the active use of the water could subject the owner to liability, as could facilitating its use to guests or the general community. If the water is not intended for swimming or other recreational activities, making changes to fencing and barriers is problematic if the barrier is not properly maintained and in accordance with applicable codes and regulations. Posting warning signage, if permitted by community regulations and applicable ordinances, can increase awareness to others to not enter the water.
If water use is encouraged and intended, as with a lake or river for fishing or waterskiing, the owners along the lake generally will not be liable to others for accidents upon the water, unless a separate act of negligence is related directly to that owner which caused or contributed to the accident.
As with any potentially dangerous condition, think about how that hazard is likely to interact with the people who visit your property. If water use is not allowed, make sure this fact is communicated to visitors. If water activities are a feature of the property, have policies in place that ensure the visitors know where, how and when access to the water is allowed, together with prominent notifications that the water is or is not being monitored by life guards.
In January 2003, our firm won a$100 million verdict in the case of a toddler who nearly drowned in her apartment complex pool because she gained access to the pool area through a broken pool gate (Hinton v. 2331 Adams Street Corp).
In August 2003, the firm made history again by attaining a $104 million verdict in a case where a boy got trapped underwater by the suction of a defective and unsafe pool pump (Peterson v. Sta-Rite).
Our attorneys also strive for tightened safety rules for pools in homes, apartments and hotels. Our work representing victims has spurred changes in state codes and laws governing pool safety.
We are all prejudiced, shaped by our interactions with others from birth. Some experiences are positive, others insulting. Each, to varying degrees, necessarily changes our perception of others. This writing is premised on the understanding that we are all susceptible to feelings and beliefs that are not always fair or rational. It is the recognition of this narrow aspect of the human condition that cautions the trial attorney to acknowledge Universal Truths where they exist, and the Stereotypes that often accompany them.
Having chosen a profession that revolves largely upon judging the behavior and motivations of others, identifying and appreciating our prejudice is a critical component of successfully working within the legal system. For trial lawyers, the process of moving from an abstract grievance to a concrete solution for our clients begins in earnest with jury selection.
A jury of our peers seems like a simple enough concept. However, in every jurisdiction with which I am familiar, the peer group is defined only by one commonality: an arbitrarily drawn geographic boundary. The remainder of that which defines your prospective panel is a mystery. Race, religion, gender, sexual identity and political beliefs all thrive independently behind each of the twenty or thirty faces staring back at you as you begin the process of selecting who, exactly, will stand in judgment of the situation that forced this community of peers to miss work and doctor appointments to perform their civic duty.
