Premises Liability / Landlord Negligence

Our client was seriously injured when he fell through a sliding glass door in his apartment. The door was constructed of outdated plate glass rather than the safety glass required by law. When the glass shattered, it severed a nerve in his arm and caused permanent damage to his dominant hand.

The consequences were life-altering. He was diagnosed with complex regional pain syndrome -- a chronic and debilitating pain condition. He lost function in his dominant hand, could no longer work, and faces a lifetime of constant pain. What should have been a safe and ordinary moment in his own home became a catastrophic injury because a landlord failed to maintain a safe premises.

The case centered on whether the building's owner knew or should have known about the dangerous condition -- outdated glass that failed to meet legal safety standards -- and failed to replace it. A jury answered that question with a $7,400,000 verdict, one of the Top 50 Premises Liability Verdicts in the United States in 2023.

Eric J. Mausner, Esq. served as participating counsel in this matter.

We identified the liability from the start. Landlords have a non-delegable duty to maintain their properties in a safe condition -- including ensuring that glass doors, windows, and fixtures meet applicable safety codes. Plate glass in a residential sliding door is not just outdated -- it is a known danger. When it shatters, it produces large, razor-sharp shards capable of severing tendons, nerves, and arteries. Building codes requiring safety glass exist precisely because of this risk. A landlord who knew or should have known about the condition and failed to replace it is liable for the consequences.

We built the case around permanent, documented damages. Complex regional pain syndrome is one of the most painful conditions recognized in medicine. Loss of dominant hand function. Inability to work. A lifetime of treatment ahead. Those damages -- documented, expert-supported, and undeniable -- drove a verdict that reflects the full human cost of what our client lost.

The jury held the landlord accountable. Despite defense arguments, the jury returned a $7,400,000 verdict -- a result that sent a clear message about the responsibility landlords bear to their tenants and the consequences of allowing known dangerous conditions to persist.