Split Jury Verdict in Copeland v. Delice Enterprises Case
Table of Contents
Case Background
In the early hours of January 1, 2021, Milagros Copeland walked through the rear parking lot of a building at 1872–1876 East Main Street in Waterbury. The lot belonged to Delice Enterprises, LLC, which owned and controlled the multi-purpose property. According to Copeland, the lot was poorly maintained and dangerously uneven.
At around 1 a.m., she stepped into a deep hole and fell forward. The fall fractured her left wrist and left her with lingering pain, swelling, and restricted motion. She later filed a lawsuit in May 2021, claiming Delice Enterprises had failed to keep the lot safe despite knowing its defects.
Cause that led to the dispute
Copeland’s lawsuit centred on negligence. She argued that Delice Enterprises let the parking lot fall into disrepair, with cracks, depressions, and craters scattered across the surface. The area also lacked proper lighting. She said these conditions made the lot unsafe for tenants and visitors alike.
She claimed the company ignored its duty to maintain the lot, failed to conduct routine inspections, and never repaired the most obvious dangers. According to her, the large hole that caused her fall had existed for a long time, giving the company more than enough time to fix it. She also argued that Delice Enterprises failed to block off or mark the area, leaving unsuspecting people exposed to the hazard.
Delice Enterprises denied nearly every allegation. In its response, the company argued that Copeland bore responsibility for her own fall. It asserted she was negligent in failing to watch where she walked and that her own actions outweighed any possible negligence by the landlord.
The company also filed a counterclaim, alleging Copeland had failed to pay rent on the property. They claimed she owed more than $26,750 in back rent and late fees under a lease agreement. This twist added a contractual battle to the personal injury dispute.
Injury
Copeland’s fall left her with a fractured left wrist. The injury limited her mobility, left her sore and disabled, and caused ongoing pain and discomfort. Doctors told her the condition was permanent, and she would continue to suffer restricted motion in her wrist.
Beyond the immediate injury, Copeland described difficulty with daily tasks, lingering soreness, and a reduced ability to live an active life. Her complaint also noted that she experienced pain throughout her recovery and would continue to face medical costs and treatment well into the future.
Damages Sought
Copeland sought damages well above $15,000. She asked for reimbursement of her medical bills and compensation for her physical pain, emotional suffering, and permanent disability. She argued that Delice Enterprises’ negligence directly caused these losses.
The defense, meanwhile, pursued damages of its own through the counterclaim. It alleged Copeland had breached her lease contract by failing to pay rent, which forced the company to sustain financial damages and hire legal counsel.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Milagros Copeland
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Isaias T. Diaz | Dressler Strickland
Defendant(s): Delice Enterprises, LLC
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Andre Cayo
Claims
Plaintiff’s counsel argued that Delice Enterprises neglected its basic duty as a landlord. The lot, he said, was riddled with hazards. The company had known or should have known about the hole but took no action to fix it, warn users, or provide better lighting. Copeland’s fall was portrayed as the predictable outcome of years of neglect.
He emphasized the permanent nature of her injury and its daily impact. He urged the jury to consider not just the pain of the fracture but the ongoing disability and medical costs she would face.
Defense
Defense counsel pushed back, insisting Copeland was responsible for her own misstep. He suggested she was not watching where she walked and ignored obvious conditions in the lot. He argued that if negligence existed at all, it was outweighed by her own failure to exercise reasonable care.
On the counterclaim, the defense argued that Copeland breached her lease by failing to pay rent, leaving Delice Enterprises with significant losses.
Jury Verdict
The case went to trial in October 2024 before a Waterbury Superior Court jury. After deliberation, the jury returned a split verdict.
On the personal injury claim, the jury sided with Delice Enterprises, LLC, finding in favor of the Defendant. This meant they did not award Copeland any damages for her fall. The jury accepted the defense’s position that Copeland’s negligence either outweighed or erased the landlord’s liability.
On the counterclaim, however, the jury sided with Copeland, rejecting Delice Enterprises’ claim for back rent. The panel found in her favor as counterclaim Defendant, relieving her from liability for the alleged $26,750 in unpaid rent.
Court Documents