Home Invasion Lawsuit

The specific legal theory used in these cases is negligent security. This is a subset of premises liability law. To succeed we must prove four elements which are duty and breach and causation and damages.

The most contested element is usually breach. We must show that the security measures were objectively inadequate. This involves a detailed audit of the physical defenses of the property.

• Absence of functioning locks on windows and doors
• Lack of adequate perimeter fencing or gates
• Failure to conduct background checks on employees with master key access
• Insufficient lighting in common areas and entryways

We employ security experts to testify regarding these failures. If the expert testifies that a functioning deadbolt or a brighter light would have deterred the intruder the landlord is liable. We argue that the landlord created a soft target that invited criminal activity.

Liability hinges on the concept of foreseeability. A landlord is generally not liable for a crime they could not have predicted. However if the crime was foreseeable they have a duty to prevent it.

We prove foreseeability by gathering data on prior crimes. This is known as constructive notice. If there were five burglaries in the complex in the last year the landlord knew or should have known that a home invasion was likely. We argue that the prior crimes put the landlord on notice that the current security measures were failing. We access police blotters and 911 call logs to build a map of criminal activity surrounding the property. We demonstrate that the attack on our client was the inevitable result of a pattern of negligence that the property owner chose to ignore.

The landlord is the primary target in most rental scenarios. They own the land and control the budget for security upgrades. Property management companies are also liable as they are the agents responsible for the day-to-day operations.

We scrutinize the lease agreements and the management contracts. We often find that the management company requested funds for security upgrades that the owner denied. Or conversely we find that the owner allocated funds for security that the management company embezzled or misspent. We exploit these internal conflicts. We argue that the tenant paid a premium for a secure building and received a dangerous one. We also investigate failure to warn claims. If the management knew about a rash of break-ins but failed to warn the tenants to stay vigilant they are liable for withholding critical safety information.

In gated communities or buildings with doormen the security company is a prime defendant. If a guard was asleep or playing on their phone or if they allowed the intruder to bypass the sign-in protocol they are negligent.

We litigate against Homeowners Associations (HOAs) as well. HOAs have a fiduciary duty to maintain the common elements which include the perimeter gates and cameras. If an HOA board voted to save money by fixing a broken gate with a cheap latch instead of a proper lock they are liable for the resulting home invasion lawsuit. We review the minutes of the board meetings to find evidence that the board was aware of the security vulnerabilities but chose to do nothing. We argue that their fiscal conservatism came at the cost of the physical safety of the residents.

Criminals prefer to operate in the dark. Inadequate lighting is a leading cause of liability. We measure the foot-candles of light in the area where the entry occurred.

If the lighting fell below the municipal code requirements or industry standards it is negligence. We also examine the quality of the hardware. We look for hollow-core doors used as exterior entries or window locks that can be defeated with a simple screwdriver. We argue that using substandard materials in a high-crime area is a breach of the duty of care. We present evidence that a reasonable landlord would have installed solid-core doors and deadbolts and motion-sensor lighting to harden the target.

Many modern buildings rely on electronic access control and surveillance. These systems require maintenance. We often find that the impressive-looking cameras were actually dummy units or that the DVR was full and stopped recording months ago.

We subpoena the maintenance logs for the electronic gates and the alarm systems. If a gate was stuck open for weeks because the management refused to pay for a repair it is a critical failure. We argue that the open gate was an invitation to the criminal. We also investigate the monitoring protocols. If an alarm went off but the monitoring company delayed calling the police for twenty minutes that delay can be the difference between a scare and a tragedy. We hold the alarm company accountable for their slow response time.

The most significant component of damages is often non-economic. This includes pain and suffering and emotional distress and loss of enjoyment of life.

We present expert testimony regarding the diagnosis of PTSD. Victims often suffer from insomnia and hypervigilance and anxiety that affects their ability to work and maintain relationships. We argue that the landlord must pay for the lifelong therapy required to manage this trauma. We also seek compensation for any physical injuries sustained during the attack. This includes current medical bills and the cost of future surgeries or rehabilitation. We ensure that the settlement offer accounts for the long-tail medical consequences of the attack.

In cases of egregious misconduct we seek punitive damages. These are designed to punish the defendant and deter future negligence. Punitive damages are available when the conduct of the landlord shows a reckless disregard for human safety.

We argue for punitive damages when the evidence shows that the landlord made a calculated decision to ignore safety. For example if the landlord received ten written complaints about a broken lock and refused to fix it to save fifty dollars that is reckless. We present evidence of the net worth of the landlord to the jury. We argue that a substantial financial penalty is necessary to send a message to the real estate industry that safety cannot be sacrificed for profit.

We build the foreseeability argument on data. We obtain the CAP Index reports which score the crime risk of a specific location.

We also subpoena the call logs for the property for the past five years. We look for calls regarding suspicious persons or trespassing or attempted break-ins. We argue that these calls were red flags that the landlord ignored. We also depose the local police officers who patrol the beat. They often testify that they warned the management about the security deficiencies. This testimony is devastating to the defense because it proves actual notice of the danger.

Depositions are where we win the case. We question the property managers under oath. We ask them about their budget priorities and their knowledge of the local crime rate.

We often catch them in contradictions. A manager might claim they inspect the lights weekly but the maintenance logs show no inspections for months. We ask the security guards about their training and their post orders. If a guard admits they were never trained on how to respond to an intruder it establishes negligent hiring and training. We use these admissions to dismantle the defense that the landlord acted reasonably. We prove that the security apparatus was a facade.