Lang v. Westfield Corporation, Inc., et al
Supreme Court,Suffolk County

Facts:

Plaintiffs, engaged at the time, since the incident they were married - went to the Mall to shop for Christmas on Dec. 7. 1997. They arrived with Sal Lang, (plaintiff’s brother) and Sal's girlfriend. After shopping or walking the Mall for an hour or so, Sal claims he was approached by a gang of 8-15 MS-13 gang members. It is claimed they were making comments to his girlfriend. He asked them to stop. George Lang, approached asked what was happening and claims to have been hit with a bottle, knocked to the floor, kicked and beaten. Bernadette Lopez (now Lang) saw her fiancée being hit and ran to his aid. She saw one of the gang members with a sharpened screw driver or awl about to stab George. She grabbed his arm and pulled it down. That caused her to be stabbed in the abdomen.

While all this was going on, plaintiffs claim that security was watching and then ran away. Plaintiff claims that security was either at the scene and fled, or stood and watched the assault. Plaintiff also argues that the gang was causing trouble in the Mall prior to their assault and the Mall and security did not react.

Plaintiff's Position:

The claim against the Mall was for inadequate security based on numerous incidents the year prior and in the year of the assault. That we did nothing to stop the MS-13 gang from being in the Mall. That our policy was to treat them as any other customer. That we did not provide enough or proper security.

Client's Position:

We hired a contract provider to perform security. That they were on the scene, and intervened as soon as the incident started. That the Mall had no prior notice of similar type events. That we provided reasonable security at the Mall. We also claim that we are entitled to defense and indemnity from the security company.

Co-defendant:

The security company claims that they intervened as soon as the incident started. They had kept the gang members under observation as they had done nothing wrong, but they, the guard company, did not like the way they were "eye balling" as the gang walked. AS for the defense issue, they claim that we controlled their actions and therefore do not owe defense. They also claimed that we were negligent and could not be defended for our own negligence.

Critical Issues:

Plaintiff’s attorney attempted to introduce certified police aided reports of prior incidents. We were successful in keeping those out of evidence based on plaintiff’s attorney’s failure to exchange the reports in discovery. The jury thought the Mall did everything possible to protect the public and could not do anything further. A hearing is still pending on the defense and legal fee issue.

Result:

Defense verdict returned by jury on behalf of client.