Georgia Home Law

In a brand new case, Georgia landlords gain a victory over tenants who are harmed on the landlord's property.  And it has the potential for changing the scope of landlord/tenant law as a whole.

In a case titled Herrera v. Miles Properties, a DeKalb County woman, Ann Herrera, sued her landlord after her son was shot on the premises.  Her son died a month later after incurring $180,000.00 in medical bills.  When Ms. Herrera filed the lawsuit, she alleged that the landlord had notice that criminal activity was happening at the complex due to many prior crimes committed there.  She alleged that the landlord was responsible for her son's death because the landlord was aware of the criminal activity and did nothing to prevent the crimes from occurring.  At some point, the perpetrators were also brought into the lawsuit even though the shooter is now serving a life sentence in prison.

In the past, Georgia law provided that damages could be relegated against one defendant or any of them.  Not anymore.  Pursuant to a new Georgia statute, damages can be specifically apportioned by the jury according to the amount of fault the jury assigns to them.  In the Herrera case, the jury awarded Ms. Herrera $184,000.00 - which covers her son's medical bills plus funeral expenses.  But the jury determined that the landlord was only 5% at fault, while the perpetrators were 95% to blame.  According to the verdict, then, Mills Properties has only to pay Ms. Herrera $9,210.00.

Ms. Herrera's lawyer, Andrew T. Rogers, was understandably upset over the verdict.  He said "The whole point of the civil case is to hold these people responsible for the failure to keep their properties safe.  There's nothing to be gained by suing the criminals.  It's like having a dangerous lion at the circus who gets out and attacks someone.  The ringmaster knows he's dangerous, but this is like suing the lion and holding him responsible."   

The lawyer for Mills Properties, David C. Marshall was happy with the result.  He praised the new law for its "common sense" and holding responsible those people who actually commit a misdeed rather than those with the deep pockets.

There were undoubtedly many, many facts and details of the case that cannot be reiterated here.  Bust based on the above synopsis, what do you think?  Good law or bad?