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

wrong spot?

Expand Messages
  • Jurydoctor@aol.com
    Going to trial on Monday.. Need your insights ASAP. thanks in advance, amy 3/6/00 Don Glen a 44 year old white male employee of Dean Witter, a tenant of the
    Message 1 of 5 , Aug 3, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Going to trial on Monday.. Need your insights ASAP.
      thanks in advance,
      amy

      3/6/00 Don Glen a 44 year old white male employee of Dean Witter, a tenant
      of the Defendants, drove into the parking garage at the Forum III Towers at
      about 8:30am to go to work. He was assigned a spot on the 2nd floor of the garage
      but his spot was taken so he parked on the ground floor usually reserved for
      guests. He proceeded to the stairwell to go up to the 2nd floor to take the
      parking bridge across to the office building. When he entered the stairwell he
      was attacked by two men. He was thrown down the stairs, cut with a knife in the
      hand, and had a gun held to his head while one of the assailants forced him
      to take the assailants penis into his mouth. He was kicked in the side of the
      head and face. He tried to fight his attackers but they stole his wallet,
      laptop computer and Rolex watch. After the attack the assailants ran away, Glen
      went to the security guard in the parking garage an advised of the attack. The
      police were called and it was reported to them. Glen gave detailed description
      of assailants and incident but never told anyone of the sexual component of the
      incident. This was revealed for the first time several months later during
      psychiatric counseling with one of his doctors.

      Plaintiffs allege that the attack was foreseeable to the Defendants since on
      9/19/97 a prior incident occurred in the same parking garage. A female
      employee of the same complex was abducted from the same garage at gunpoint, driven
      off the property robbed and sexually assaulted. The Defendants were notified of
      her attack shortly after it happened. Three property managers of the complex,
      including the one in charge at the time of Don’s assault, admitted actual
      notice of the earlier attack on the female.

      There are no other violent crimes at the property between these two attacks.
      There are however, a number of violent crimes in the immediate vicinity of the
      property in the same period of time.

      Plaintiffs allege the Defendants were negligent in preventing the attack for
      a number of reasons:

      1 Only increase in security after the female attack was
      the addition of one more guard. (There were two in the garage before the attack
      on the female.)
      2 Despite the prior attack the Defendants never obtained a
      professional security risk needs survey or analysis to determine the level of
      security needed.
      3 Although there was a surveillance camera system in place
      at the time of both attacks, no one monitored or watched the camera images.
      The cameras were on two monitors that were kept in a closet.
      4 The Defendants representatives admit that the main
      function of 2 of the 3 guards in place at the time of Doe’s attack was to manage
      vehicle traffic. Only one guard was assigned to roam the entire property to
      provide personal security.
      5 Plaintiffs allege Don’s attack would have been prevented
      if electronic gate arms would have been installed at the tenant and visitor
      entrances to free those guards manning those gates to provide personal safety.
      And if security cameras would have existed at the stairwell entrance-ways with
      a guard assigned to watch the images the attack could have been avoided. The
      Plaintiffs further allege that the Defendants were negligent by failing to
      implement these measures in light of the prior attack.
      6 Plaintiff has sustained a cervical herniation requiring
      surgery, fractured teeth and TMJ problems, a mild left ear hearing loss,
      lacerations to eye, mouth and hand that healed shortly after the attack. He further
      has been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, anxiety and
      depression caused by the attack requiring extensive therapy and medications.
      7 The Plaintiffs seek approx. $300,000 in past and future
      medical expenses. $400,000 in past wage loss. They also seek damages for
      physical and emotional pain and suffering in the past and future. There is also a
      claim for the loss of services and support of her husband by Doe’s wife.

      Defendant’s Case.

      LOVED owns the property. GMAN manages the property for the owner.
      1 Both Defendants allege that the
      event was not foreseeable by them and they therefore did not owe Don a duty
      to protect him from the attack.
      2 They contend that the prior
      abduction sexual assault and robbery was an isolated incident and say that they
      should be given credit for the lack of violent crime at the property during
      their ownership/management of the property.
      3 They also deny that they were
      negligent in failing to prevent the attack and believe that they were providing
      reasonable security including three guards, a total of 33 video surveillance
      cameras and were appropriately restricting access to the garage.
      4 They also contend that there was
      no way to stop these very aggressive, fearless criminals from committing the
      attack in broad daylight, in early morning rush hour.
      5 They claim Plaintiff was also at
      fault since he chose to enter an isolated stairwell rather then walking
      through an open service road to enter the building where he worked.
      6 Regarding damages, the
      Defendants contend Don suffered minor physical injuries, included the lacerations. They
      contend the sexual attack did not occur since it was not reported to anyone
      for such a long time. (Approx. seven months)
      7 An orthopedic surgeon hired by
      the defense claims Don’s injuries are not as severe as he claims and that he
      did not need surgery.
      8 A defense Psychiatrist and
      Neuro-psychologist that have examined the Plaintiff regarding his emotional trauma
      agree that if the attack occurred the way the Plaintiff alleges it occurred,
      then he does have PTSD and anxiety caused by the attack and that he will need
      future care. The Neuro-psych expresses some concern about the validity of
      plaintiff’s responses to neuro psych testing.
      9 The Defendants allege that the
      past medical expenses are excessive and that much of the care is related to a
      prior automobile accident with injuries that occurred in 1995. They deny that
      he had a disc herniation or that he needed surgery.
      10 They contend Don should have
      returned to work to support his wife and two children much sooner and that he did
      not need three years out of work to recover from his physical and emotional
      injuries.
      11 They contend Don was going to lose
      his job as a financial advisor even if the attack did not occur based on the
      testimony of his employer and that his daughter’s diagnosis of leukemia created
      a significant emotional struggle for him that he now wants to blame on the
      attack.



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Seymour Dupa
      If his assigned parking spot had not been taken, this would not have happened. ... tenant ... Towers at ... the garage ... reserved for ... take the ...
      Message 2 of 5 , Aug 4, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        If his assigned parking spot had not been taken,
        this would not have happened.

        >
        >
        > Going to trial on Monday.. Need your insights ASAP.
        > thanks in advance,
        > amy
        >
        > 3/6/00 Don Glen a 44 year old white male employee of Dean Witter, a
        tenant
        > of the Defendants, drove into the parking garage at the Forum III
        Towers at
        > about 8:30am to go to work. He was assigned a spot on the 2nd floor of
        the garage
        > but his spot was taken so he parked on the ground floor usually
        reserved for
        > guests. He proceeded to the stairwell to go up to the 2nd floor to
        take the
        > parking bridge across to the office building. When he entered the
        stairwell he
        > was attacked by two men.
      • fred rozek
        I think the security issues need to be addressed particularly the usage of the video survailance. In this day and age we live in and the responsibility of all
        Message 3 of 5 , Aug 4, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          I think the security issues need to be addressed particularly the usage of the video survailance. In this day and age we live in and the responsibility of all of us for homeland security I think the lack of surveilance in the stairwell is an obvious lack of resposibility for the safety of anyone using the parking structure. Even more so considering a previous sexual assault

          Seymour Dupa <grumpy@...> wrote:If his assigned parking spot had not been taken,
          this would not have happened.

          >
          >
          > Going to trial on Monday.. Need your insights ASAP.
          > thanks in advance,
          > amy
          >
          > 3/6/00 Don Glen a 44 year old white male employee of Dean Witter, a
          tenant
          > of the Defendants, drove into the parking garage at the Forum III
          Towers at
          > about 8:30am to go to work. He was assigned a spot on the 2nd floor of
          the garage
          > but his spot was taken so he parked on the ground floor usually
          reserved for
          > guests. He proceeded to the stairwell to go up to the 2nd floor to
          take the
          > parking bridge across to the office building. When he entered the
          stairwell he
          > was attacked by two men.




          <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>


          Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


          ---------------------------------
          Yahoo! Groups Links

          To visit your group on the web, go to:
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/infoguys-list/

          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          infoguys-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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




          ---------------------------------
          Do you Yahoo!?
          New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • fred rozek
          After going over the particulars in this incident i am stunned that with 33 surveilance cameras in use or should Isay place that the stairwell was left
          Message 4 of 5 , Aug 4, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            After going over the particulars in this incident i am stunned that with 33 surveilance cameras in use or should Isay place that the stairwell was left unprotected by survailance. The fact that were not being monitored properly shows poor administration by managers of the security team. I'm in doubt about the sexual aspect of crime due to the lack of mention of substatiating defensive wounds other than a cut on the hand.If indeed it did happen as explained I would have maimed the assailant in an unforgetable manner ! Not reporting the nature of the sexual assault only hurt his credibility as I see it.
            I think a high percentage of the blame should be placed on the security of the facility, with a portion also to be assigned to the victim for being to lax in his own welfare survailance. I can only offer opinion on the matter though as I have'nt seen actual information. good luck. I also think a closer background check on the victim may be advantagious to the case

            Jurydoctor@... wrote:


            Going to trial on Monday.. Need your insights ASAP.
            thanks in advance,
            amy

            3/6/00 Don Glen a 44 year old white male employee of Dean Witter, a tenant
            of the Defendants, drove into the parking garage at the Forum III Towers at
            about 8:30am to go to work. He was assigned a spot on the 2nd floor of the garage
            but his spot was taken so he parked on the ground floor usually reserved for
            guests. He proceeded to the stairwell to go up to the 2nd floor to take the
            parking bridge across to the office building. When he entered the stairwell he
            was attacked by two men. He was thrown down the stairs, cut with a knife in the
            hand, and had a gun held to his head while one of the assailants forced him
            to take the assailants penis into his mouth. He was kicked in the side of the
            head and face. He tried to fight his attackers but they stole his wallet,
            laptop computer and Rolex watch. After the attack the assailants ran away, Glen
            went to the security guard in the parking garage an advised of the attack. The
            police were called and it was reported to them. Glen gave detailed description
            of assailants and incident but never told anyone of the sexual component of the
            incident. This was revealed for the first time several months later during
            psychiatric counseling with one of his doctors.

            Plaintiffs allege that the attack was foreseeable to the Defendants since on
            9/19/97 a prior incident occurred in the same parking garage. A female
            employee of the same complex was abducted from the same garage at gunpoint, driven
            off the property robbed and sexually assaulted. The Defendants were notified of
            her attack shortly after it happened. Three property managers of the complex,
            including the one in charge at the time of Don���s assault, admitted actual
            notice of the earlier attack on the female.

            There are no other violent crimes at the property between these two attacks.
            There are however, a number of violent crimes in the immediate vicinity of the
            property in the same period of time.

            Plaintiffs allege the Defendants were negligent in preventing the attack for
            a number of reasons:

            1 Only increase in security after the female attack was
            the addition of one more guard. (There were two in the garage before the attack
            on the female.)
            2 Despite the prior attack the Defendants never obtained a
            professional security risk needs survey or analysis to determine the level of
            security needed.
            3 Although there was a surveillance camera system in place
            at the time of both attacks, no one monitored or watched the camera images.
            The cameras were on two monitors that were kept in a closet.
            4 The Defendants representatives admit that the main
            function of 2 of the 3 guards in place at the time of Doe���s attack was to manage
            vehicle traffic. Only one guard was assigned to roam the entire property to
            provide personal security.
            5 Plaintiffs allege Don���s attack would have been prevented
            if electronic gate arms would have been installed at the tenant and visitor
            entrances to free those guards manning those gates to provide personal safety.
            And if security cameras would have existed at the stairwell entrance-ways with
            a guard assigned to watch the images the attack could have been avoided. The
            Plaintiffs further allege that the Defendants were negligent by failing to
            implement these measures in light of the prior attack.
            6 Plaintiff has sustained a cervical herniation requiring
            surgery, fractured teeth and TMJ problems, a mild left ear hearing loss,
            lacerations to eye, mouth and hand that healed shortly after the attack. He further
            has been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, anxiety and
            depression caused by the attack requiring extensive therapy and medications.
            7 The Plaintiffs seek approx. $300,000 in past and future
            medical expenses. $400,000 in past wage loss. They also seek damages for
            physical and emotional pain and suffering in the past and future. There is also a
            claim for the loss of services and support of her husband by Doe���s wife.

            Defendant���s Case.

            LOVED owns the property. GMAN manages the property for the owner.
            1 Both Defendants allege that the
            event was not foreseeable by them and they therefore did not owe Don a duty
            to protect him from the attack.
            2 They contend that the prior
            abduction sexual assault and robbery was an isolated incident and say that they
            should be given credit for the lack of violent crime at the property during
            their ownership/management of the property.
            3 They also deny that they were
            negligent in failing to prevent the attack and believe that they were providing
            reasonable security including three guards, a total of 33 video surveillance
            cameras and were appropriately restricting access to the garage.
            4 They also contend that there was
            no way to stop these very aggressive, fearless criminals from committing the
            attack in broad daylight, in early morning rush hour.
            5 They claim Plaintiff was also at
            fault since he chose to enter an isolated stairwell rather then walking
            through an open service road to enter the building where he worked.
            6 Regarding damages, the
            Defendants contend Don suffered minor physical injuries, included the lacerations. They
            contend the sexual attack did not occur since it was not reported to anyone
            for such a long time. (Approx. seven months)
            7 An orthopedic surgeon hired by
            the defense claims Don���s injuries are not as severe as he claims and that he
            did not need surgery.
            8 A defense Psychiatrist and
            Neuro-psychologist that have examined the Plaintiff regarding his emotional trauma
            agree that if the attack occurred the way the Plaintiff alleges it occurred,
            then he does have PTSD and anxiety caused by the attack and that he will need
            future care. The Neuro-psych expresses some concern about the validity of
            plaintiff���s responses to neuro psych testing.
            9 The Defendants allege that the
            past medical expenses are excessive and that much of the care is related to a
            prior automobile accident with injuries that occurred in 1995. They deny that
            he had a disc herniation or that he needed surgery.
            10 They contend Don should have
            returned to work to support his wife and two children much sooner and that he did
            not need three years out of work to recover from his physical and emotional
            injuries.
            11 They contend Don was going to lose
            his job as a financial advisor even if the attack did not occur based on the
            testimony of his employer and that his daughter���s diagnosis of leukemia created
            a significant emotional struggle for him that he now wants to blame on the
            attack.



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




            <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>


            Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


            ---------------------------------
            Yahoo! Groups Links

            To visit your group on the web, go to:
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/infoguys-list/

            To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            infoguys-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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





            ---------------------------------
            Do you Yahoo!?
            Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Jurydoctor@aol.com
            In a message dated 8/6/2004 5:11:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time, infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com writes: Even more so considering a previous sexual assault wonder
            Message 5 of 5 , Aug 6, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 8/6/2004 5:11:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
              infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com writes:
              Even more so considering a previous sexual assault
              wonder if it was the same assailant..
              amy


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.