Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

rape

Expand Messages
  • Jurydoctor@aol.com
    Here is an interesting civil rape case.. Hope I can get your thoughts on this one. Amy FACTS: The Defendants, Colley Arms, include a corporation that operates
    Message 1 of 8 , Oct 3, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Here is an interesting civil rape case.. Hope I can get your thoughts on this
      one.
      Amy

      FACTS:

      The Defendants, Colley Arms, include a corporation that operates
      a high-rise 6-story apartment building that primarily serves senior citizens
      on limited income, with assistance through HUD, and the management company
      that managed the complex on a day-to-day basis. The Plaintiff, Dava, like other
      tenants, was issued three keys at the time she rented her apartment. One key
      was for the exterior security door, one key for her apartment door, and one
      key for her mailbox.

      Dava has cerebral palsy, and as a result she requires assistance
      for all of her daily activities. She has significant loss of control of her
      entire body from head to toes, including her vocal cords that make it difficult
      for her to speak clearly. She spends her non-sleeping time in a motorized
      wheel chair that has a joystick, which she operates with limited function of her
      hand. She is mentally capable of listening and understands conversation and
      staying focused on a discussion. However, she is not capable of getting in or
      out of the wheel chair on her own, or in and out of bed on her own. She is
      provided through public assistance a home care provider that assists her from 7
      a.m. to 11 a.m., and a second caregiver that works from 5 p.m. to 11 p.m.

      As part of the lease agreement, Dava was not permitted to
      duplicate her key. The agreement also states that in the event a key that has been
      provided to the Plaintiff is not returned at the time of move out, she will be
      charged a replacement charge of $35-$50. Dava requested an extra key for the
      exterior door of the building, and Defendants issued her the key after she
      issued them a check for $50 as a key deposit, which would only be cashed if she
      did not return the key. The exterior door of the building is equipped with a
      security device that requires a person seeking entry to either use a key or to “
      be buzzed in” in order to enter. Plaintiff gave the extra exterior door key
      to one of her caregivers, since Plaintiff is unable to “buzz in” anyone if
      she is not in her wheelchair and thereby able to access the buzzer.

      From the time she moved in, Plaintiff left her apartment door
      unlocked so that her caregivers could have access to her apartment since she did
      not have keys to give them. Because she has cerebral palsy, Plaintiff’s
      evening caregiver must physically place her in bed before she leaves for the night
      and must place her emergency call button that if activated, notifies the front
      desk of an emergency. Plaintiff is unable to leave her bed without
      assistance, and she therefore is confined to her bed until her morning caregiver
      arrives.

      Plaintiff and one of her care givers testified that they informed the
      manager of their need for an additional key due to Plaintiff’s circumstances, and
      the manager testified that although he does not recall the conversations, he
      also couldn’t say they did not take place. He also testified that in any event
      it would not make any difference because he would not have issued the key
      without payment of the $35.00.

      A couple of months prior to the incident that gave rise to this
      lawsuit, Plaintiff requested an extra key for her apartment door so that her
      evening caregiver could lock the apartment door when she left at night, and her
      morning caregiver could then use a key to unlock the door when she arrived.
      The Defendant’s manager said that he would only issue the key upon payment of a
      $35 fee. Plaintiff said the she could not afford the fee in a single
      payment, and she asked if a $5 per week payment plan was acceptable. The Defendant
      knew that Plaintiff’s income comes solely from social security and part-time
      work with the Ohio Developmental Disability program. She pays $113 of her
      monthly income to the Defendant in rent, and the remainder is subsidized through a
      program administered by the federal department of Housing and Urban
      Development. Eastland Manor’s manager replied that a payment plan for the key was not
      acceptable, and he did not issue her a second key. The Plaintiff therefore
      continued to leave her door unlocked at night.

      Sometime during the night on April 10, 1997, after her evening
      caregiver had left for the day, Abraham, entered the Plaintiff’s unlocked
      apartment and raped her. Abraham was a frequent visitor to the apartment complex
      because his grandparents and aunt live there. The Plaintiff knew Abraham for
      more than five years before she was raped, and she never had reason to be
      concerned that he would attack her. Abraham was convicted of three counts of
      raping the Plaintiff.

      Upon entering the Plaintiff’s apartment, the Defendants
      silhouette was seen by the Plaintiff in the dark of her apartment with only one small
      light burning. The Plaintiff had at her side an emergency call button on a
      cord. Plaintiff did not push the button and the Defendant proceeded to rape her.
      The Defendant then left and the Plaintiff still did not push the emergency
      button. The Defendant came back in the apartment to rape her again, but this
      time, before doing so, pulled the emergency call button out of reach of the
      Plaintiff. The Defendant then left, and returned a third time and raped her for
      the third and final time. Plaintiff was found the next morning by her a.m.
      caregiver who was informed by the Plaintiff as to what happened during the
      night, the police were called, and the Plaintiff was taken to the hospital. The
      Plaintiff contracted a venereal disease from the rape, which resolved a few
      months later.

      The defendants recognized a need to provide internal security for
      its tenants by providing locks on each apartment door, and that “it is for
      the best” that residents keep their apartment doors locked. The Defendants were
      aware that a number of apartment keys were “out there”, and to address those
      concerns rekeyed the entire building to prevent unauthorized access to the
      apartments. The exterior door was equipped with a special lock system using
      keys that were marked “do not duplicate” and that could “only be duplicated by
      the original locksmith given permission from the factory.” The apartment door
      locks were not on the same special system, and its keys could be duplicated in
      an ordinary manner, but the lease agreement and policy of the Defendants
      prohibited residents to have copies made. The Defendant’s policy was to provide
      only one set of keys per resident, and that additional keys could not be
      provided unless the originals were lost or stolen. The Defendant admits that it
      charged its residents for a replacement key for a fee of $35.00.

      The supervisor of the manager who refused the extra key to the
      Plaintiff without payment of $35.00, and owner of the Defendant management
      company testified that had she been aware of Plaintiff’s request for an additional
      key, the reason for the key, and the request for the payment plan, she would
      have issued the key.

      Plaintiff testified that she asked for the additional key so that
      she could in fact lock her door at night, but it was not provided because
      she could not afford the payment of $35.00.

      There were no similar incidents in the apartment complex before
      this incident occurred. The supervisor and owner of the Defendant apartment
      complex management company did testify that she had requested additional HUD
      funding to hire additional security guards, and that the request was denied. The
      reason for her request is that over the years she has noticed that the
      neighborhood has changed warranting additional security.

      The Plaintiff had an income of $475 per month; her rent was $113
      per month; she spent money on shopping at the mall for necessities, purchased
      food, went to the movie theater for a show, bought dresses and jewelry.

      Plaintiff is seeking the jury to award monetary damages against
      the Defendants for their negligent failure to provided adequate security, and
      negligent failure to provide a safe residence as require by the land lord
      tenant law of this state.



      What do you think?
      also if the defendants are liable, what monetary compensation (how much)
      should Dava receive?


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • spynet
      Dear AMY, In my opinion it seems to be a preplaned incident so that the tannent(DAVA) could ask the land-lord for the compensation. Following are the facts
      Message 2 of 8 , Oct 4, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear AMY,


        In my opinion it seems to be a preplaned incident so that the tannent(DAVA) could ask the land-lord for the compensation. Following are the facts which support my opinion-


        > though DAVA was unable to move on her own but she was atleast capable of buzz the emergency button, which she did not did after first rape.


        > If she has done this the furter rapes have must not been happened


        > DAVA, Infact, had two keys, one issued when she moved into the appartment & the second when she requsted first time.


        > The request dennied was for the thierd key which i dont think was a must.


        > In case when request for 3rd key dennied, DAVA can handover her 2 keys to her two caretakers so that they can unlock & lock the door to enter & while leaving the flat. But she didn`t did this.


        > Keeping one key with her makes no sense, as dava was unable to move her.


        So, I think the land lord is not liable to pay any compensation to dava. Anyway dava can ask for compensation to abraham, the rapist.


        Sachin K. Singh[Mob.- +91-9811614007]


        Spyder Investigations Inc.


        2240/a Mandir lane, W P Ngr., ND-8


        INDIA
        Click onthe image to chat with me


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Jurydoctor@aol.com
        So, I think the land lord is not liable to pay any compensation to dava. Anyway dava can ask for compensation to abraham, the rapist. Ah yes, but Abraham has
        Message 3 of 8 , Oct 6, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          So, I think the land lord is not liable to pay any compensation to dava.
          Anyway dava can ask for compensation to abraham, the rapist.

          Ah yes, but Abraham has no $.. so therefore no compensation.
          You are right if the rape was intentional, and the parties knew each other, I
          am not sure the apt. complex is responsible.

          Only problem with the apt. complex is the lousy policy they have for issuing
          keys.


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Frank M. Reilly
          I m no expert on the Americans with Disabilities Act, but the landlord may have some liability for failing to reasonably accommodate Dava by providing her with
          Message 4 of 8 , Oct 6, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            I'm no expert on the Americans with Disabilities Act, but the landlord may
            have some liability for failing to reasonably accommodate Dava by providing
            her with a separate key to her apt. Further, the landlord, knew that it's
            residents might be in danger since it asked for public funding for a guard
            and it installed the alarm buttons, hence putting the landlord in a more
            culpable position. Is this a law school final exam question?



            *************************************
            Frank M. Reilly
            Potts & Reilly, L.L.P.
            Attorneys and Counselors
            401 West 15th Street, Suite 850
            Austin, Texas 78701
            512.469.7474 - Office
            512.469.7480 - Fax
            www.pottsreilly.com - Web
            reilly@... - E-Mail


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • robyn herring
            Amy: Dava is severely handicapped. She should have been given the keys she needed. She may not have been able, in her state of mind, to buzz for help. I m
            Message 5 of 8 , Oct 7, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              Amy: Dava is severely handicapped. She should have been given the keys she needed. She may not have been able, in her state of mind, to buzz for help. I'm rather certain from the sounds of this that she is probably not capable of making quick moves, or maybe she was totally mentally "lost" after having been raped. The bottom line is that the man entering the apartment had no business doing so at any hour for any reason. It is such a shame that this society is more than willing to find or create excuses for those who do wrong. If you were disabled, had very limited financial resources, were trapped in bed or a wheelchair 24/7, could do, in essence, nothing for yourself, would your state of mind necessarily be "ok" at any time?? Think about that for a moment. Really. My heart goes out to Dava without knowing anymore than I do, or having been personally involved. I think the complex in which she lived should definitely be responsible for not having made arrangements to get a person so severely handicapped another key!!!
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: Jurydoctor@...
              To: courttv_2@yahoogroups.com ; Psy-CJ-Law@yahoogroups.com ; criminalminds@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 10:44 PM
              Subject: [infoguys-list] rape


              Here is an interesting civil rape case.. Hope I can get your thoughts on this
              one.
              Amy

              FACTS:

              The Defendants, Colley Arms, include a corporation that operates
              a high-rise 6-story apartment building that primarily serves senior citizens
              on limited income, with assistance through HUD, and the management company
              that managed the complex on a day-to-day basis. The Plaintiff, Dava, like other
              tenants, was issued three keys at the time she rented her apartment. One key
              was for the exterior security door, one key for her apartment door, and one
              key for her mailbox.

              Dava has cerebral palsy, and as a result she requires assistance
              for all of her daily activities. She has significant loss of control of her
              entire body from head to toes, including her vocal cords that make it difficult
              for her to speak clearly. She spends her non-sleeping time in a motorized
              wheel chair that has a joystick, which she operates with limited function of her
              hand. She is mentally capable of listening and understands conversation and
              staying focused on a discussion. However, she is not capable of getting in or
              out of the wheel chair on her own, or in and out of bed on her own. She is
              provided through public assistance a home care provider that assists her from 7
              a.m. to 11 a.m., and a second caregiver that works from 5 p.m. to 11 p.m.

              As part of the lease agreement, Dava was not permitted to
              duplicate her key. The agreement also states that in the event a key that has been
              provided to the Plaintiff is not returned at the time of move out, she will be
              charged a replacement charge of $35-$50. Dava requested an extra key for the
              exterior door of the building, and Defendants issued her the key after she
              issued them a check for $50 as a key deposit, which would only be cashed if she
              did not return the key. The exterior door of the building is equipped with a
              security device that requires a person seeking entry to either use a key or to “
              be buzzed in” in order to enter. Plaintiff gave the extra exterior door key
              to one of her caregivers, since Plaintiff is unable to “buzz in” anyone if
              she is not in her wheelchair and thereby able to access the buzzer.

              From the time she moved in, Plaintiff left her apartment door
              unlocked so that her caregivers could have access to her apartment since she did
              not have keys to give them. Because she has cerebral palsy, Plaintiff’s
              evening caregiver must physically place her in bed before she leaves for the night
              and must place her emergency call button that if activated, notifies the front
              desk of an emergency. Plaintiff is unable to leave her bed without
              assistance, and she therefore is confined to her bed until her morning caregiver
              arrives.

              Plaintiff and one of her care givers testified that they informed the
              manager of their need for an additional key due to Plaintiff’s circumstances, and
              the manager testified that although he does not recall the conversations, he
              also couldn’t say they did not take place. He also testified that in any event
              it would not make any difference because he would not have issued the key
              without payment of the $35.00.

              A couple of months prior to the incident that gave rise to this
              lawsuit, Plaintiff requested an extra key for her apartment door so that her
              evening caregiver could lock the apartment door when she left at night, and her
              morning caregiver could then use a key to unlock the door when she arrived.
              The Defendant’s manager said that he would only issue the key upon payment of a
              $35 fee. Plaintiff said the she could not afford the fee in a single
              payment, and she asked if a $5 per week payment plan was acceptable. The Defendant
              knew that Plaintiff’s income comes solely from social security and part-time
              work with the Ohio Developmental Disability program. She pays $113 of her
              monthly income to the Defendant in rent, and the remainder is subsidized through a
              program administered by the federal department of Housing and Urban
              Development. Eastland Manor’s manager replied that a payment plan for the key was not
              acceptable, and he did not issue her a second key. The Plaintiff therefore
              continued to leave her door unlocked at night.

              Sometime during the night on April 10, 1997, after her evening
              caregiver had left for the day, Abraham, entered the Plaintiff’s unlocked
              apartment and raped her. Abraham was a frequent visitor to the apartment complex
              because his grandparents and aunt live there. The Plaintiff knew Abraham for
              more than five years before she was raped, and she never had reason to be
              concerned that he would attack her. Abraham was convicted of three counts of
              raping the Plaintiff.

              Upon entering the Plaintiff’s apartment, the Defendants
              silhouette was seen by the Plaintiff in the dark of her apartment with only one small
              light burning. The Plaintiff had at her side an emergency call button on a
              cord. Plaintiff did not push the button and the Defendant proceeded to rape her.
              The Defendant then left and the Plaintiff still did not push the emergency
              button. The Defendant came back in the apartment to rape her again, but this
              time, before doing so, pulled the emergency call button out of reach of the
              Plaintiff. The Defendant then left, and returned a third time and raped her for
              the third and final time. Plaintiff was found the next morning by her a.m.
              caregiver who was informed by the Plaintiff as to what happened during the
              night, the police were called, and the Plaintiff was taken to the hospital. The
              Plaintiff contracted a venereal disease from the rape, which resolved a few
              months later.

              The defendants recognized a need to provide internal security for
              its tenants by providing locks on each apartment door, and that “it is for
              the best” that residents keep their apartment doors locked. The Defendants were
              aware that a number of apartment keys were “out there”, and to address those
              concerns rekeyed the entire building to prevent unauthorized access to the
              apartments. The exterior door was equipped with a special lock system using
              keys that were marked “do not duplicate” and that could “only be duplicated by
              the original locksmith given permission from the factory.” The apartment door
              locks were not on the same special system, and its keys could be duplicated in
              an ordinary manner, but the lease agreement and policy of the Defendants
              prohibited residents to have copies made. The Defendant’s policy was to provide
              only one set of keys per resident, and that additional keys could not be
              provided unless the originals were lost or stolen. The Defendant admits that it
              charged its residents for a replacement key for a fee of $35.00.

              The supervisor of the manager who refused the extra key to the
              Plaintiff without payment of $35.00, and owner of the Defendant management
              company testified that had she been aware of Plaintiff’s request for an additional
              key, the reason for the key, and the request for the payment plan, she would
              have issued the key.

              Plaintiff testified that she asked for the additional key so that
              she could in fact lock her door at night, but it was not provided because
              she could not afford the payment of $35.00.

              There were no similar incidents in the apartment complex before
              this incident occurred. The supervisor and owner of the Defendant apartment
              complex management company did testify that she had requested additional HUD
              funding to hire additional security guards, and that the request was denied. The
              reason for her request is that over the years she has noticed that the
              neighborhood has changed warranting additional security.

              The Plaintiff had an income of $475 per month; her rent was $113
              per month; she spent money on shopping at the mall for necessities, purchased
              food, went to the movie theater for a show, bought dresses and jewelry.

              Plaintiff is seeking the jury to award monetary damages against
              the Defendants for their negligent failure to provided adequate security, and
              negligent failure to provide a safe residence as require by the land lord
              tenant law of this state.



              What do you think?
              also if the defendants are liable, what monetary compensation (how much)
              should Dava receive?


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



              Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT




              <p><hr></p>
              To subscribe, send an empty message to <a href="mailto:infoguys-list-subscribe@yahoogroups.com">infoguys-list-subscribe@yahoogroups.com</a><br/>
              To unsubscribe, send a message to <a href="mailto:infoguys-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com">infoguys-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com</a><br/>
              <p><hr></p>

              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Jurydoctor@aol.com
              In a message dated 10/7/2003 7:04:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time, infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com writes: Is this a law school final exam question? Unfortunately,
              Message 6 of 8 , Oct 7, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                In a message dated 10/7/2003 7:04:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
                infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com writes:
                Is this a law school final exam question?

                Unfortunately, no.. it is the real thing.
                Defense is offering 300k
                plaintiff is asking for 450K
                I am trying to find out what folks think about the settlement negotiations.
                Amy


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Frank M. Reilly
                Sorry to hear that it s real... but glad to hear that the defense is offering to pay something. Based on the facts you ve related, the 450k sounds very
                Message 7 of 8 , Oct 7, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  Sorry to hear that it's real... but glad to hear that the defense is
                  offering to pay something. Based on the facts you've related, the 450k
                  sounds very reasonable to me considering that she was disabled and that
                  they didn't make any accommodation to help her, and I presume that they
                  knew she left her door open. Given that they let others have keys to give
                  to family members (though I'm sure they charged for them), then there
                  wasn't much security, i.e., they didn't have control over who received the
                  keys, including, of course, the rapist. Without the security then she was
                  at risk.

                  Frank

                  At 11:05 AM 10/7/2003, you wrote:
                  >In a message dated 10/7/2003 7:04:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
                  >infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com writes:
                  > Is this a law school final exam question?
                  >
                  >Unfortunately, no.. it is the real thing.
                  >Defense is offering 300k
                  >plaintiff is asking for 450K
                  >I am trying to find out what folks think about the settlement negotiations.
                  >Amy
                  >
                  >
                  >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                  ><http://rd.yahoo.com/M=259395.3614674.4902533.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705059354:HM/A=1524963/R=0/SIG=12o885gmo/*http://hits.411web.com/cgi-bin/autoredir?camp=556&lineid=3614674&prop=egroupweb&pos=HM>
                  >4004acf.jpg
                  >
                  >[]
                  >
                  >
                  ><p><hr></p>
                  >To subscribe, send an empty message to <a
                  >href="mailto:infoguys-list-subscribe@yahoogroups.com">infoguys-list-subscribe@yahoogroups.com</a><br/>
                  >To unsubscribe, send a message to <a
                  >href="mailto:infoguys-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com">infoguys-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com</a><br/>
                  ><p><hr></p>
                  >
                  >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
                  ><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.

                  *************************************
                  Frank M. Reilly
                  Potts & Reilly, L.L.P.
                  Attorneys and Counselors
                  401 West 15th Street, Suite 850
                  Austin, Texas 78701
                  512.469.7474 - Office
                  512.469.7480 - Fax
                  www.pottsreilly.com - Web
                  reilly@... - E-Mail


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • ray_madison
                  I presume you know this forum is public and postings are available to all on the internet. So if you are in negotiations, you might not want to give too many
                  Message 8 of 8 , Oct 7, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I presume you know this forum is public and postings are available to all on the
                    internet. So if you are in negotiations, you might not want to give too many details
                    about the strengths or weaknesses of your case or position in these postings.

                    Ray Madison

                    --- In infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com, Jurydoctor@a... wrote:
                    > In a message dated 10/7/2003 7:04:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
                    > infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com writes:
                    > Is this a law school final exam question?
                    >
                    > Unfortunately, no.. it is the real thing.
                    > Defense is offering 300k
                    > plaintiff is asking for 450K
                    > I am trying to find out what folks think about the settlement negotiations.
                    > Amy
                    >
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.