Plaintiff was a tenant in an apartment building owned by defendants. In 2021, the girlfriend of another tenant who lived upstairs from plaintiff physically assaulted plaintiff in the building. Plaintiff sued defendants for negligence, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of implied warranty of habitability.
At trial, plaintiff claimed that, before the assault, defendants had acted negligently by failing to evict the upstairs tenant because of noise disturbances and suspected drug-dealing activity. Plaintiff also advanced a second negligence theory—that defendants breached an alleged duty to install a lock on the door that led to the upstairs area where the other tenant lived. After a 10-day trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff on all claims, awarding her $1,885,252 in negligence damages and $19,205 in contract damages. On the negligence claim, the jury allocated 60 percent responsibility to defendants and 40 percent responsibility to the assailant for the injuries plaintiff sustained in the assault. The trial court entered judgment totaling $1.2 million against defendants.
Horvitz & Levy was retained after the verdict to help prepare post-trial motions on behalf of defendants. Defendants moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, arguing that they owed no duty to evict the upstairs tenant because neither he nor his girlfriend did anything to put defendants on notice that the girlfriend might act violently toward plaintiff. Defendants also argued that plaintiff presented no evidence that a lock on the door leading to the upstairs units would have prevented the assault, which occurred on the ground floor outside plaintiff’s apartment. Defendants also moved for a new trial, arguing that the weight of evidence did not support the jury’s verdict and that the presiding juror, who worked as a flight attendant, committed misconduct by telling the other jurors during deliberations to apply the heightened standard of care applicable to common carriers, like airlines. The superior court agreed with these arguments and granted defendants both judgment notwithstanding the verdict and, in the alternative, a new trial. The parties subsequently settled the case.
