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
Negligent Security
Failure to Protect

Antonio Steward, Steve Steward and Annie Bessie Camp v. Stratus Security Services Inc., CF Aventerra LC, Picerne Management Co. Inc., C.F. Aventerr LP, Saly Antoon, Sherif Antoon and A&A Protective Services

Published: Jul. 6, 2013 | Result Date: Jun. 13, 2013 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: SCVSS145226 Verdict –  $55,151,500

Court

San Bernardino Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Gary A. Dordick
(Dordick Law Corporation)

Sandor C. Fuchs

James S. Muller


Defendant

Laura L. Kim

Scott L. MacDonald
(Macdonald & Cody LLP)

Shirley R. Sullinger
(Office of the Attorney General)

Adam D. Wieder

Barry A. Bradley
(Bradley & Gmelich LLP)


Experts

Plaintiff

Joanne Latham
(technical)

Lawrence Miller M.D.
(medical)

Graham M. Woolf
(medical)

Bruce Ramm
(technical)

Gregory A. Lee
(technical)

Karl J. Schulze
(technical)

Keith E. Vinnecour M.D.
(medical)

A. Jubin Merati Ph.D.
(technical)

Defendant

Ricardo Chavez
(medical)

Russell M. Fransden
(technical)

Constantine M. Boukidis
(technical)

Douglas H. Bryant
(technical)

Thomas L. Hedge Jr., M.D.
(medical)

Greg McCrary
(technical)

Gene Bruno M.S., C.R.C., C.C.M., C.D.M.S.
(medical)

John H. Reith
(technical)

Facts

Antonio Steward was a 17-year old high school student, who lived at Aventerra Apartment complex in Fontana. On Aug. 26, 2006 he was sitting on the stairs of the apartment complex at approximately 12:30 a.m., hanging out with two friends. At the same time, a large group of males that appeared to be gang members were having a party outside one of the apartment units, in violation of numerous house rules for the apartment complex. The Stratus Security Guard, Darrell H., approached the individuals having the party. Thereafter, Darrell H. left the area, walked past the plaintiff and went to his car which was located in one of the other apartment complexes. Thereafter, plaintiff was shot nine times by a member of the local Crips gang.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs contend that the security guard failed to perform the duties that were required of him by not breaking up the party, not identifying who the 10 individuals were visiting, not calling 911 to report what he believed to be gang members partying on the premises, failing to remain in the area to observe and report and when he left the area walking by the Plaintiff, failing to warn the plaintiff and failing to advise the Plaintiff that he was not permitted under apartment rules to loiter on the stairs after 10:00 p.m. Plaintiff further contends that one of the individuals at the party was the same individual that approached Plaintiff and shot him nine times.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendants contended that Stratus and A&A were separate corporations and that all corporate formalities were followed, that the Stratus Security Guard was only an unarmed "courtesy patrol" and his only duties were to be the "eyes and ears" of management and to do various minor activities like close the pool at 10:00 p.m. and close the laundry room after 10:00 p.m, and that the courtesy patrol was only there to report improper activity to the management and not to prevent crime. Defendants also disputed that the individuals the security guard had approached at the outdoor party were the same individuals that shot plaintiff. The security guard, Darrell H., also testified that he saw the individuals comply with his request and go inside the apartment. Finally, defendants argued that the shooting was not foreseeable and that it was an unpreventable random act of violence.

Settlement Discussions

Plaintiffs made a $1 million policy limits demand, which was rejected. Plaintiffs made a CCP 998 demand for $8.5 million, which was also rejected. Defendants offered $1 million. at the start of trial and then $2 million while the jury was deliberating on the liability phase. Plaintiff offered to settle the case for $10 million during the deliberations on the liability phase.

Damages

According to plaintiff, damages were as follows: past loss of earnings $159,473; future loss of earnings $1,306,787; future life care plan $3,488,767. According to defendants, damages were as follows: past loss of earnings $165,248; future loss of earnings $870,537; future life care plan $2,143,114.

Injuries

Steward was shot in his legs. Steward later developed gangrene, a complication from the gunshot wounds, resulting in the amputation of his legs above the knee. Steward has had 56 surgeries and will need at least 40 more in the future. Moreover, he has had 40 percent of his stomach removed.

Result

A jury awarded Steward $55 million in his negligence claim against the security company. However, Steward's award was reduced according to comparative liability assigned to each party. The jurors assigned 49 percent responsibility of the shooting to Stratus, 49 percent to Turner, and two percent to Steward.

Other Information

Summary Judgment was granted in 2008. The Court of Appeal, on a 2-1 decision, reversed, thus sending the case back to the Superior Court for trial. This was a trifurcated proceeding. The first phase was alter ego, second phase was liability, and the third phase was damages. In phase one, the court found that both corporations were one and the same entity and that both individuals would be held personally liable.


#91542

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

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