Jury finds owner/landlord negligent in apartment fire

Listen to this article

Summary of the facts: On Jan. 19, 2006, the plaintiff, Sammie Vance, was in his first floor apartment at 3417 W. Hampton in Milwaukee’s inner city. At about 4:30 a.m. Vance noticed flickering under his apartment door. He opened his door to explore the situation to find out that his apartment hallway was engulfed in flames. Confronted with this emergency, he ran out of the apartment through the fiery hall without shoes or shirt. In an attempt to escape, he fell exiting his apartment and rolled on the fiery floor, severely burning his feet, legs and back which resulted in second and third degree burns to 30 percent of his body.

During investigation of the origin of the fire it was determined that a tenant with a previous arson conviction was allowed residency in the apartment building without the owner doing a criminal background check to determine his suitably for tenancy in the multifamily building. The defendant contested whether the owner/landlord had an obligation to do background checks on his tenants and alleged adequate background checks were performed.

The defendant also argued Vance’s injuries were solely the result of his own negligence in running headlong into a fiery hallway when he had an alternate escape route from his first floor apartment through a sliding window immediately adjacent to his bed. The defendant argued all the other tenants in the building escaped unharmed either through window exits or waiting in their apartments until the arrival of the fire department rescue crews.

The plaintiff further argued the defendant landlord violated the safe place statute by not having code-required fire extinguishers, and the proper number of smoke detectors and fire alarm systems. The plaintiff further argued the arsonist tenant was known to the landlord to “become a monster when he was drunk” and gave a statement to his insurance company to that effect. Knowing this he allowed the arsonist to remain as a tenant in the building.

The plaintiff further argued the landlord was negligent for failing to have a resident manager onsite and security cameras to monitor tenant activity in a high-crime building and neighborhood.

The jury found the plaintiff 0 percent negligent and placed 100 percent of the negligence on the landlord for allowing a convicted arsonist to reside in the building and not providing proper safety and security once allowing the arsonist to live in the building.