Tenant Loses Slip-and-Fall Case Against Landlord in CT
Table of Contents
Case Background
The lawsuit of Nicholas Muniz v. DHM Enterprises, Inc. came out of an accident that happened on a cold winter night in Meriden, Connecticut. Nicholas Muniz, a tenant living at 453 West Main Street, claimed he suffered a devastating fall on the steps outside his apartment building because of unsafe conditions that his landlord, DHM Enterprises, failed to correct.
Muniz lived at the property as a tenant, while DHM Enterprises owned and managed the building. The landlord was responsible for keeping the shared spaces of the property safe, including the exterior stairs that all tenants used. According to Muniz, DHM Enterprises neglected this responsibility by failing to maintain the gutters above the stairs. These gutters had become clogged and broken, causing water to overflow onto the steps. On cold nights, the water froze into ice patches that turned the stairs into a serious hazard.
On the evening of February 4, 2021, around nine o’clock, Muniz was heading down the exterior steps of the building. As he stepped onto the icy surface, he slipped and fell violently. The fall left him with severe injuries, including a spiral fracture of his femur that required emergency surgery. He also suffered related soft tissue damage and lasting physical pain.
Muniz brought the case to court, saying the accident was entirely preventable and was caused by his landlord’s neglect. He filed a complaint for negligence and negligence per se, pointing not only to common-law landlord duties but also to specific city ordinances and Connecticut statutes that required landlords to keep shared areas in safe condition.
Cause
Muniz’s complaint stated that DHM Enterprises failed in several ways. He alleged that the company allowed a dangerous condition to develop and continue on the property when it knew, or should have known, that tenants regularly used those stairs. He argued that the landlord ignored the clogged and damaged gutters, which directed water onto the steps and created the very ice patch that caused his fall.
He also stated that the landlord failed to take simple and reasonable steps such as repairing the gutters, replacing them, or warning tenants not to use the icy stairs. By doing nothing, Muniz said, DHM Enterprises left him exposed to a danger that violated the landlord’s duty of care.
The second part of his lawsuit alleged negligence per se, meaning that DHM Enterprises violated specific housing codes in Meriden. According to Muniz, the company failed to maintain shared areas like exterior stairs in a safe condition, and it also let the gutters fall into visible disrepair, all in violation of the city’s housing ordinances.
Injury
The fall left Muniz with painful and lasting injuries. His most serious injury was a spiral fracture of the femur, which required surgery to repair. This kind of fracture is not only intensely painful but also leaves long-lasting effects even after treatment. He endured surgery, hospitalization, and an extended period of recovery.
In addition to the fracture, Muniz reported soft tissue injuries and general pain and suffering. He said the injuries restricted his ability to walk, move, and enjoy his normal daily life. He also claimed emotional distress, noting that the fall and its aftermath caused him fear, anxiety, and mental suffering. According to his filings, some of these effects were likely to be permanent, leaving him with ongoing physical and emotional challenges.
Damages
Muniz sought money damages to cover the full scope of his injuries and losses. This included emergency hospital bills, surgical costs, physical therapy, medication, and other related medical expenses. He argued that he would continue to face medical costs in the future.
Beyond financial losses, Muniz also sought compensation for the pain, suffering, and diminished quality of life that came with his injuries. His formal demand stated that the amount at stake was more than $15,000, not including interest and legal costs.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Nicholas Muniz
Counsel for Plaintiff: David A. Leff
Experts for Plaintiff: Bob Cox | Jeffery A. Cissell | Stephen Van Dyke | Sean Caffyn | John P. Connors | Richard J. Gessman | Olga Solovyova | Daniel H. Wilensky | Dafna Busel | Mindy Fricke
Defendant: DHM Enterprises, Inc.
Counsel for Defendant: Miles N. Esty
Plaintiff’s Claims
Muniz’s side told the jury that this was a straightforward case of landlord neglect. His attorney stressed that the problem with the gutters was not sudden or hidden. Instead, the gutters had been clogged and leaking for some time, and the resulting water had been spilling directly onto the stairs. On cold February nights, it was no surprise that the water froze into ice.
His lawyer argued that DHM Enterprises knew, or should have known, about this dangerous condition and that the company had plenty of opportunity to fix it. Repairing or replacing gutters is part of normal property maintenance, especially in a shared living space where tenants depend on safe passage.
The Plaintiff’s team also pointed to Meriden housing ordinances and state landlord-tenant law. These rules required landlords to keep common areas in safe condition, yet DHM Enterprises allowed unsafe conditions to continue.
Defense
The defense denied that DHM Enterprises was responsible for Muniz’s fall. While the company admitted it owned the property, its lawyers argued that the Plaintiff himself was to blame. They raised the issue of comparative negligence, which means that if Muniz’s own actions contributed to the accident, his recovery should be reduced or barred.
The defense argued that Muniz failed to keep a proper lookout and did not exercise reasonable care while walking down the steps. According to them, he should have noticed the ice and avoided it. They suggested that his fall was not the result of any negligence by the landlord but rather his own inattention.
The defense also denied many of the Plaintiff’s factual claims, including the description of the gutters and the cause of the ice. They maintained that Muniz could not prove that the landlord’s conduct directly caused the accident.
Jury Verdict
After both sides presented their cases, the jury began deliberations. They had to decide whether DHM Enterprises was negligent and whether that negligence caused Muniz’s injuries, or whether Muniz himself was responsible for the fall.
On August 4, 2025, the jury reached a unanimous verdict. They found in favor of the Defendant, DHM Enterprises. This decision meant that the jury did not hold the landlord legally responsible for Muniz’s accident and injuries.
For Muniz, the outcome was a complete loss. Despite the serious injury and medical evidence, the jury concluded that he had not proven his landlord was negligent, or that his own fault played the larger role. As a result, he received no damages from the lawsuit.
Court Documents