Jury Sides with JPD Properties in LaFountain Injury Case
Table of Contents
Case Background
On February 10, 2021, James J. LaFountain went to 736 Enfield Street in Enfield, Connecticut, a commercial property owned and operated by JPD Properties, LLC. According to his complaint, he entered the premises lawfully as a business invitee. While attempting to climb the front stairs, he fell forward when one of the steps gave way beneath him.
LaFountain claimed the stairs had been in poor condition, with crumbling concrete and a lack of repair. He accused JPD Properties of neglecting basic maintenance, despite being responsible for the safety of the exterior premises. His fall, he said, triggered a series of devastating injuries that would forever change his health and quality of life.
James’s wife, Janet, joined the lawsuit, alleging that her husband’s injuries robbed her of his companionship, assistance, and the everyday comforts of married life. Together, the LA Fountains brought the case against JPD Properties in Hartford Superior Court in January 2022.
The Heart of the Case
The heart of the case lay in whether JPD Properties had acted negligently in maintaining the stairs. James argued that the Defendant had failed to inspect the steps, repair damaged concrete, or provide warnings of the unsafe condition. In his view, the accident was not a fluke but the foreseeable result of a long-standing defect that had gone unaddressed.
His complaint listed several failings: neglecting routine inspections, ignoring the need for concrete repair, failing to ensure a safe entrance, and permitting the dangerous stairs to exist unchecked. Each of these alleged lapses, he claimed, contributed to the fall.
JPD Properties answered with denials and raised a special defense. The company insisted that James himself bore responsibility. They argued that he failed to watch where he stepped, did not use reasonable care, and neglected to avoid what he claimed was a visible hazard. The defense suggested his own negligence was a substantial factor in causing his injuries.
Injuries suffered
James’s injuries were extensive. He fractured his right shoulder, requiring surgery. Post-surgery, complications followed, including swelling, infection, and a fluid build-up at the incision site. Doctors eventually removed the prosthesis and performed a radical resection of his right humerus. He underwent lengthy courses of intravenous antibiotics through a PICC line.
Beyond the shoulder, he developed venous thromboembolic disease, swelling in both legs, chronic pain, and muscle spasms. He lost significant mobility and suffered permanent impairment to his right arm, shoulder, and hand. Sleeplessness, depression, and difficulty performing daily activities added to his struggles.
For Janet, the injuries created emotional and practical loss. She testified that her husband’s pain and reduced mobility deprived her of his companionship and support, affecting their marriage and household.
Damages
The LA Fountains sought monetary damages above $15,000, covering medical costs, hospitalizations, medications, pain and suffering, and Janet’s loss of consortium. They argued the injuries were permanent and life-altering.
The claim included both economic damages (medical bills, treatment, therapy, prescriptions) and non-economic damages (pain, suffering, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life).
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): James J. LaFountain | Janet LaFountain
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Vanessa Cardoso
· Experts for Plaintiff(s): Robert Lowe | Rachna Kapoor | Anthony Posteraro | Michelle Romero | Marc Haber | Peter Morrision | Michael Firestone | Jonathan Getz | Dale T. Toce | David Stroh | Michael Millett | Erin Kalnenieks | Mark W. Tebbets | Mark Falce
Defendant(s): JPD Properties, LLC
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Lawrence L. Connelli
Claims
The Plaintiffs’ attorney argued that JPD Properties failed in its most basic responsibility: to provide a safe property. The unsafe stairway had not been inspected or repaired, despite clear deterioration. James’s fall, they said, was the natural result of this neglect.
Counsel stressed the severity of James’s injuries, his numerous surgeries, and the lasting physical impairments. They emphasized that Janet’s loss of companionship and support was just as real, though less visible.
Defense
Defense counsel denied the allegations and shifted attention to James’s own conduct. They claimed he was not careful, failed to observe his surroundings, and could have avoided the fall had he paid closer attention. They argued JPD Properties should not be held fully accountable for an accident caused, at least in part, by James himself.
Jury Verdict
The case went to trial in October 2024. After hearing the evidence, the jury deliberated and delivered its verdict on October 30, 2024.
The jury found in favor of the Defendant, JPD Properties, LLC, on both counts. They rejected James’s negligence claim and, as a result, also rejected Janet’s loss of consortium claim. No damages were awarded.
This outcome meant the jury accepted the defense’s argument that either JPD Properties was not negligent, or that James’s own negligence outweighed any fault on the part of the property owner.