Doe v. Manheimer

563 A.2d 699 (1989)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P was a meter reader for the Connecticut Light and Power assigned to work in the Green Street area. P observed a man on the opposite sidewalk who appeared to be looking for directions. She crossed the street to offer assistance. The man reached into a satchel, removed a gun, and held it against her. The man then forced her onto adjacent property owned by D some fifty to seventy feet from the sidewalk. Overgrown sumac bushes and tall grass shielded the area from view from the sidewalk and street. The abductor viciously assaulted and raped P for thirty minutes. H used a rope and rubber gloves which suggested that the sexual assault had been planned. The assailant has never been identified or caught. P has attempted suicide on several occasions. Her emotional and psychiatric problems have required and continue to require hospital confinement. P sued D for personal injuries sustained in the assault under common law negligence, statutory negligence and public nuisance. Because D had failed to remove the overgrown vegetation although he knew or should have known that, because the neighborhood was a high crime area, third persons might use the overgrowth to conceal the perpetration of crimes against pedestrians. P alleged, the overgrowth caused and contributed to the assault and the duration of the assault. It was clearly established that the area was a high crime area. An expert testified that the physical configuration of the specific site increased the risk of violent crimes between strangers by creating a 'protective' zone that reduced or eliminated visibility and, hence, served as an inducement for crime. A building official for the city of New London and one of the authors of the housing code, testified that the site of the defendant's property where the rape had occurred violated the housing code due to the presence of an 'obnoxious' overgrowth of sumac trees and brush, and various debris including papers, shingles, and broken glass. D had been notified in March 1983, and again in February 1984, of the housing code violations, and was specifically told to remove all the debris and broken glass and 'cut all the bushes and trees down.' D did not correct the violations. There was a conflict of whether the housing code was to prevent deterioration and blight and to promote beauty or to prevent crime. D rested without presenting evidence and moved for a directed verdict. The jury returned a general verdict in favor of the P and awarded her $540,000 in damages. The trial court set aside the verdict on D's motion. The court found a legally cognizable duty and a breach of that duty, but it ruled that 'the shielded bushing did not cause the injury. The rape and assault caused the injury and damages.' The trial court held that the jury could not find that the D's maintenance of overgrowth on his property was a 'substantial factor' in producing P's injuries and, hence, P had failed to establish proximate cause. This appeal and transfer resulted.