Jury Clears Bridgeport Businesses in Injury Lawsuit
Case Background
On February 16, 2021, Randy Zingo had been seated inside the premises of a business located at 218 Harborview Avenue in Bridgeport, Connecticut. While he sat at a table as a business invitee, a large ceiling light fixture broke free and fell, striking him directly on the head. The property was owned by ERT Harborview, LLC and operated by Harborview Market, LLC. Zingo filed suit against both entities, alleging that the incident occurred due to negligent maintenance of the property.
Cause
Zingo filed a two-count complaint alleging negligence. In Count One, he named ERT Harborview, LLC, claiming the company had owned, controlled, and maintained the property and failed to ensure that the ceiling fixture was properly secured. In Count Two, he made similar allegations against Harborview Market, LLC, asserting that it had operated and managed the interior space and shared the same responsibility to keep the premises safe. Zingo argued that both Defendants knew or should have known the light fixture posed a hazard and failed to act on it.
Injury
According to Zingo, the falling light caused significant and possibly permanent injuries. He reported trauma to his cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine, as well as pain in his right shoulder. He also experienced frequent headaches and developed radiculopathy—a condition that causes nerve pain radiating from the spine. These physical injuries, he said, were compounded by emotional consequences such as anxiety, frustration, and mental distress.
Damages
Zingo sought compensatory damages for medical treatment, including therapy and medications, and anticipated further costs in the future. He claimed his injuries limited his ability to work and disrupted his personal and professional life. He also said his condition prevented him from enjoying daily activities he once took part in. He demanded damages in excess of $15,000, exclusive of interest and court costs.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Zingo's legal team pointed to a basic failure in property maintenance. They argued that the falling light fixture had been a foreseeable hazard and that both the property owner and the market operator had either ignored the risk or failed to notice it through proper inspection. They stressed that no warnings had been issued, no area had been blocked off, and no visible effort had been made to fix or secure the fixture before the incident.
The Defendants admitted ownership and control of the space but denied any wrongdoing. They disputed the claim that they had failed in their duty of care or that the fixture had posed an obvious hazard. They also raised a special defense, arguing that Zingo himself had contributed to his injuries.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Randy Zingo
· Counsel for Plaintiff: R.J. Weber III
Defendants: ERT Harborview
· Counsel for Defendants: Miles N. Esty
Key Arguments by Counsel
Zingo’s attorney argued that the presence of a falling ceiling fixture in a public dining space was clear evidence of negligence. He emphasized that the Defendants had failed to carry out even basic inspection and maintenance responsibilities.
Defense counsel focused on the absence of prior complaints or warnings about the fixture. They also claimed that Zingo may not have taken reasonable precautions for his own safety. Their arguments suggested that he bore some responsibility for failing to observe and avoid the hazard.
Claims Asserted
Negligence Against ERT Harborview, LLC
Zingo alleged the company failed to inspect, repair, or secure the light fixture, failed to warn patrons of the danger, and failed to barricade or mark off the area. He claimed these oversights created a dangerous environment and directly caused his injuries.
Negligence Against Harborview Market, LLC
Similar to the first count, Zingo asserted that Harborview Market, LLC had operated and controlled the premises and bore equal responsibility for ensuring safety. He alleged the same maintenance and oversight failures.
Defense Arguments
The Defendants denied the negligence claims and admitted only that the incident occurred inside their premises. They maintained that they had no prior knowledge of the defect and that the premises had been reasonably maintained. Through a special defense, they argued that Zingo failed to keep a proper lookout and exercise care under the circumstances, contributing to or entirely causing his injuries.
Jury Verdict
On May 14, 2025, the jury unanimously found in favour of the Defendants, ERT Harborview, LLC and Harborview Market, LLC. The jury determined that Zingo failed to prove negligence and awarded him no damages. The verdict marked a full defense victory, clearing both the property owner and market operator of any liability in the ceiling fixture incident.