This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Personal Injury
Premises Liability

Barbara Robles and Rebekah Ramirez v. Peter Coleman, Rosemary M. Brickey, and Alan Stuart Construction

Published: Mar. 31, 2007 | Result Date: Oct. 17, 2006 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: CIV237102 Arbitration –  $9,000

Court

Ventura Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Victor Salas

DeJon R. Lewis


Defendant

John C. Lauritsen
(Boeddinghaus & Velasco)

Erik B. Feingold
(Myers, Widders, Gibson, Jones & Feingold, LLP)


Facts

Peter Coleman and Rosemarie Brickey, the owners of an apartment complex, hired Alan Stuart Construction to make repairs to the complex roof and add an extension to the property. During the roof repair, a large hole was created in the roof above the apartment where Barbara Robles and Rebekah Ramirez resided. The hole was covered by a tarp, but heavy rains caused the tarp to retain a large amount of water. A construction employee tried to remove the tarp in order to drain the water, but instead caused the water to pour into the apartment below. Robles and Ramirez filed suit against the construction company for property damage, and Coleman and Brickey for negligent retention of a contractor.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs claimed that they could no longer reside in the apartment because of the water damage, and that they had to move in with friends. The alleged that the construction employee was incompetent, and was never supervised. Further, they claimed that he went through their drawers and smoked marijuana outside their apartment.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The property owners denied being aware of the contractor's incompetence and denied having control over his work or his employee. The construction company denied any negligence, and claimed that the workers were properly supervised at all times. They collectively disputed the amount of damages plaintiffs claimed.

Injuries

Plaintiffs claimed $20,000 to $25,000 in property damage.

Result

The jury awarded plaintiff $9,000, paid by the construction company's insurer. The property owners were dismissed from the case.


#83959

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390