$150,000 RECOVERY UNDER HOMEOWNER’S POLICY FOR ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE OF DEFENDANT IN FAILING TO ADVISE PLAINTIFF, WHO MET HER ON DATING SITE, THAT SHE HAD BOYFRIEND
Plaintiff assaulted by boyfriend who strikes him on head with metal object – Depressed skull fracture – Surgeries – Ligamental disruption in ankle area – Placement of screws in ankle area – residual pain and stiffness.
Union County, NJ- This action involved a plaintiff in his mid 30s who met the defendant homeowner through the non-party dating site. The plaintiff contended that after they went out a few times after meeting in Feb., they did not see each other again until the defendant homeowner called towards the end of the year. The plaintiff maintained that after going out with her, he went back to her house where the two were intimate. The plaintiff contended that when he looked out the window in the early morning hours, he observed a man outside the home. The plaintiff maintained that he asked the homeowner if she had a boyfriend. The plaintiff related that she answered in the negative and told him that the person was a stalker. The plaintiff suggested that the defendant homeowner call the police and that she refused to do so.
The plaintiff related that he became frightened, was about to leave, but that the boyfriend apparently had a key and let himself into the foyer. The plaintiff maintained that when he attempted to leave, the boyfriend attacked him.
The plaintiff contended under a premises liability theory, that the defendant had a duty to warn him of a known danger and that she should have told him about a boyfriend.
The homeowner told the police that she had broken up with the assailant a significant time earlier. The plaintiff established that when the assailant was arrested a few days later, the defendant homeowner was with him and the plaintiff contended that it was clear that the defendant homeowner had lied to the police.
The defendant homeowner moved for Summary Judgment, denying that she had a duty towards the plaintiff.
The defendant homeowner would have also argued that the primary cause was the actions of the defendant assailant.
The plaintiff maintained that the assailant struck him in the head with a metal object. The plaintiff contended that he suffered a a right pareitetal depressed fracture with a brain bleed, underwent two brain surgeries, including an operation to remove fragments and “clean up” the area and a second to place a plate. The plaintiff contended that he will permanently suffer headaches and some difficulties with concentration.
The plaintiff also contended that he suffered a tendon disruption in the ankle area and that the treatment included the insertion of several screws. The plaintiff contended that he will suffer permanent pain and stiffness.
The plaintiff missed several months from his job as a maintenance worker.
The case against the defendant homeowner settled during the pendency of her Summary Judgment motion for $150,000.
Plaintiff’s neurosurgical expert: Marvin Friedlander, MD from Union, NJ. Plaintiff’s orthopedic surgical expert: Walter Pedowitz, MD from Linden, NJ. Plaintiff’s Neuro-psychologist expert: Jay Gordon, Brick, NJ.
Moulton vs. Santius, et al.. Docket no. UNN-L-4657-10; Judge Set after mediation before Retired Judge Eugene Cody, 07-00-13.
Attorney for plaintiff : Randolph H. Wolf ofWolf Law in Red Bank, NJ.