Case Study: Scott Vs. Foreline Security

MARISHIA SCOTT vs. FORELINE SECURITY CORPORATION

COUNTY/DOCKET #/JUDGE: Lake / 00-129 / John W. Booth

AGE/SEX/OCCUPATION OF PLAINTIFF: 28 / F / Bank Teller

CAUSE OF INJURY: Negligent Security/Bank Robbery. On March 20, 1999, a robber entered United Southern Bank in Mt. Dora, committed a robbery, murdered one teller, and shot and paralyzed Plaintiff, another teller. Plaintiff alleged that the robber chose this bank, after casing the bank and other banks, because he believed that he could commit the robbery, kill the tellers, and take the surveillance equipment, which was in plain view on the manager’s desk, in order to conceal his identity. The robber was caught coming out the manager’s office with the VCR in hand. Plaintiff claimed that Defendant was responsible for designing, proposing and installing the security system and surveillance system, including the VCR. Plaintiff further claimed that Defendant failed to install panic buttons at the teller stations, as well as other security measures, which rendered the system unreasonably dangerous. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant misrepresented to the bank the quality and nature of the security system and that Defendant did not install the system in accordance with its contract or industry standards.

NATURE OF INJURY: Gunshot wound to cervical spine severing spinal cord at C4-C5; quadriplegic.

EXPERT WITNESSES:
PLAINTIFF’S:
Jeffrey Zwirn, Security Alarm, Teaneck, NJ
Dan Kennedy, Ph.D., Criminology/Sociology, Troy, MI
Gregg McCrary, Criminology, Fredericksburg, VA
Paul Deutsch, Vocational Rehabilitation, Orlando
Frederick A. Raffa, Ph.D., Economist, Orlando
Dianna Harper, M.D., Physiatry, Orlando
Mark Dersch, M.D., Urology, Ocala

VERDICT: $26,917,053.51 for Plaintiff on February 14, 2002 ($1,054,507.51 – past medical expenses; $10,250,000 – future medical expenses; $54,379 – past lost wages ; $558,167 – future lost earnings; $5,000,000 – past pain and suffering; $10,000,000 – future pain and suffering).

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY’S COMMENTS: Defendant offered $1,500,000 before trial. This was a bifurcated trial. The jury found Defendant liable under negligence, breach of implied warrants, strict liability, and negligent and fraudulent misrepresentations.