Michigan Jury Awards $3.69 million to Victim who was sexually abused for years

The American Association for Justice reported in its October 2008 Law Reporter that a Michigan woman was awarded $3.69 million, including $990,000 for past pain and suffering and the rest for future pain and suffering against a restaurant owner who had sexually abused her beginning when she was 11 years old.  At 23 the woman began suffering flashbacks and required therapy for posttraumatic stress disorder, dissociative disorder, and depression. 

Plaintiffs like this woman, however, may suffer an additional injury when they attempt to collect their judgments.  Many insurance companies try to avoid paying claims stating that insurance coverage is excluded for these types of injuries.  Fortunately, for residents of Pennsylvania the Supreme Court held in 2006 that when a Complaint alleges injuries that could be covered under the policy of insurance, it is the duty of the insurance company to defend until such time as the claim is confined to a recovery that the policy does not cover.

Owners of Parking Lots and Established Public Areas Have a Duty to Protect Invitees from Forseeable Risk of Harm

On Sunday, October 5, 2008 an unknown rapist assautled a woman in a party bus parked at Lincoln Financial Field in South Philadelphia during the Eagles football game against the Washington Redskins.  The assaulted woman according to newspaper accounts left the game to rest in the party bus.  Seeking help in finding the bus from a man who appeared to be an event staffer who was wearing a bright yellow vest, she was escorted by the man to the bus where she fell asleep.  Later, according to police, the man returned and sexually assaulted the woman.

Pennsylvania Courts have consistently adopted the Restatement of Torts §344 which holds that property owners, such as owners of parking lots here, must provide reasonable measures to control the conduct of third persons, or to give adequate waring to enable patrons to avoid possible harm.  Responsibility on the part of the owner will be imposed when they either fail to take reasonable care to discover dangerous conduct of third persons which is likely to occur or fail to take reasonable care to provide appropriate precautions.

Cases such as these require immediate investigation to determine whether the parking lot owner has breached that duty and whether the risk of harm was foreseeable.  According to Security Expert Chris E. McGoey the concept of crime foreseeability has been the subject of great confusion around the country.  He writes that when assessing crime foreseeability, three factors need to be considered:  (1) the nature of the premise, (2) crime demongraphics, and (3) location.