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

rape

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.