R.F. vs. 211 N. 13th Street Associates LP, et al.

Case Background

On March 2, 2023, Plaintiff  R.F., a paralegal, filed an  Assault lawsuit in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, First Judicial District(Case number:  230300228). Judge Daniel J. Anders presided over the case and re-assigned to Gwendolyn N. Bright.

Cause

On July 5, 2022, Willie Harris breached security protocols at a Philadelphia office tower at 211 N. 13th Street. After entering the building undetected, Harris went to the eighth floor, where he searched for unlocked doors. He eventually accessed a law firm’s offices, where he encountered R.F., a paralegal working alone. Harris took advantage of the isolated situation, robbing and violently assaulting the paralegal. When a co-worker unexpectedly returned, Harris fled, managing to evade detection. He slipped past the front desk security guard and exited the building unnoticed. Authorities later arrested Harris, and he was convicted of several serious crimes, including involuntary deviant sexual intercourse, burglary, and robbery. At the time the complaint was filed, Harris awaited sentencing..

Injuries

As a result of the attack perpetrated by Willie Harris, R.F., a paralegal endured severe physical and psychological injuries. The assault and rape occurred while she was isolated and vulnerable, working alone in her law firm’s offices on the eighth floor of the building. The trauma of the incident left R.F. with lasting physical injuries as well as significant emotional and psychological distress. These injuries likely included, but were not limited to, physical pain and suffering, emotional anguish, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, depression, and potential long-term effects on her personal and professional life.

Damages

In her legal action, R.F. sought substantial compensatory damages that exceeded the arbitration limits set by the court. These damages were intended to cover the full extent of both the physical and psychological harm resulting from the assault. The compensation sought likely included medical expenses for both immediate and ongoing treatment, therapy costs for addressing psychological trauma, lost wages due to time away from work, loss of earning capacity if the injuries affected her ability to work in the future, and damages for pain and suffering. Additionally, R.F. may have sought damages for loss of enjoyment of life and other non-economic impacts of the traumatic event.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal representation

  • Plaintiff(s): R.F., an Adult Individual
    • Counsel for Plaintiff: Thomas R. Kline| Lorraine H. Donnelly
  • Defendant(s):211 N. 13th Street Associates LP | North 13 LLC | Belmont Funding LLC | Felchen 15, LLC
    • Counsel for Defendants: Robert L. Sanzo| Daniel S. Gradwohl | Suchi Vuu | Gabriel Z. Levin

Claims

R.F.’s complaint alleged multiple instances of negligence against the property owners and managers in a Assault lawsuit:

Failure to provide adequate security measures:

The complaint argued that the building lacked sufficient security protocols and equipment to prevent unauthorized access and protect tenants.

Improper training and supervision of security guards:

R.F. claimed that security personnel were not adequately prepared to handle potential security threats or respond to emergencies effectively.

Failure to prevent unauthorized entry:

The ease with which Harris entered and moved through the building served as evidence of inadequate access control measures.

Failure to warn tenants about an earlier attempted unauthorized entry:

The complaint alleged that building management was aware of a previous security incident but did not alert tenants, leaving them vulnerable.

Disregard of foreseeable risks:

R.F. argued that the defendants should have anticipated the possibility of such an incident and taken appropriate preventative measures.

  • Flawed security design, including:
    • Limited direct observation of the front door and stairwells by the security guard: The complaint pointed out that the guard’s reliance on camera feeds, rather than direct line of sight, was insufficient.
    • Lack of separate locks on stairwell doors: This allowed Harris to move freely between floors once he gained entry to the building.
    • Absence of buzzers or alarms to alert the guard of entry: The lack of such systems made it difficult to track unauthorized movement within the building.

Failure to take additional security measures or notify tenants after an earlier attempted entry:

This claim emphasized the defendants’ alleged inaction in response to a known security threat.

Negligence based on vicarious liability for the security guard’s failures:

R.F. argued that the property owners and managers were responsible for the actions (or inactions) of their employed security personnel.

Defense

The defendants, comprising the property owners and managers, contested R.F.’s allegations in their response to the complaint. They argued that they maintained reasonable security measures appropriate for the building’s location and type. The defendants asserted that they properly trained and supervised the security personnel, who followed established protocols on the day of the incident. They contended that Willie Harris’s actions were unforeseeable and constituted an intervening criminal act beyond their control. The defense claimed that the building’s security design met or exceeded industry standards, with functional surveillance systems and access controls in place.

They denied any prior knowledge of attempted unauthorized entry on the day of the assault. Furthermore, the defendants argued that they fulfilled their duty of care to tenants and visitors, and that R.F.’s injuries resulted solely from Harris’s criminal conduct, for which the defendants bore no legal responsibility. They maintained that the security guard acted reasonably given the circumstances and that any alleged negligence on the guard’s part did not proximately cause R.F.’s injuries. The defense sought dismissal of all claims, asserting that they neither breached their duty of care nor bore liability for the criminal actions of a third party.

Jury Verdict

On May 14, 2024, R.F. and the defendants reached a settlement in the Assault lawsuit, with the defendants agreeing to pay $6 million in compensation to R.F., a paralegal who suffered immensely from the violent attack.

Court Documents:

Available Upon Request