In Amrhein v. Concord Management, Ms. Amrhein's husband and son claim that the apartment did not do enough to ensure the safety of the tenants.
For the plaintiff, Beers & Gordon's David Beers told the jury that Mr. Kollissiba, who lived across the street, had entered the apartment complex repeatedly in the past and had never been confronted by anyone about what he was doing on the property.
Morever, said Mr. Beers, a courtesy officer and a marked police car were supposed to be at the site, but were not. A reasonably prudent site manager, according to Mr. Beers, would have taken more steps than Concord Management took to secure the property.
For Concord Management, Rissman Barrett's Robert Jack told the jury that the plaintiffs lived in the apartment complex for a year-and-a-half and felt safe during that period, and even renewed the lease. The four on-site cameras were intended, said Mr. Jack, to protect the apartment's property, not to provide security, and the plaintiff's should not have expected that security cameras were provided. In fact, the lease specifically provided that the property managers did not provide security.
Finally, according to Mr. Jack, Mr. Kollissiba’s actions constituted a “sudden murder,” and there was nothing anyone could have done to prevent it.
CVN is webcasting Amrhein v. Concord Management live.