Father of man murdered outside Dorchester apartment building sues owner and management and security firms for failing to protect son's life

By adamg on Thu, 07/21/2022 - 2:58pm

Christian Nunes says his son, Christian Nunes Perkins, might still be alive if the owners and other firms responsible for 169 Columbia Rd. had done more to keep the apartment building in a high-crime area safe.

In a wrongful-death suit filed yesterday in Suffolk Superior Court, Nunes charges that the Codman Square Neighborhood Development Corp., which owns the building, WinnResidential, which manages it, and Security Service Specialists, which provides security for it, failed to take some basic steps that might have prevented the murder of his son around 11 p.m. on July 28, 2019, weeks before his 21st birthday, in what Nunes says was a case of mistaken identity.

Nunes alleges the companies knew that the resident of the building the still unidentified shooter thought he was shooting was a criminal troublemaker and gang member, yet they did nothing to get him out of the building, and that there were gaps along fencing on the exterior of the building that they knew about that let the shooter hide and sneak up on his son while he and a friend who also lived in the building socialized in front of the building on a summer night.

The complaint says Nunes Perkins was "a kind, soft-spoken and intelligent young man who worked hard and stayed out of trouble" and that he shouldn't have died just because the three companies failed to fix the problems with the fencing or provide a security guard to watch over the building, near where other people had been shot in the months before his death.

Neighborhoods:

Topics:

Free tagging:

Attachment	Size
Complete complaint	286.08 KB

Ad:

Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

Misplaced Anger

By Username Unknown on Thu, 07/21/2022 - 3:12pm.

There is only one person responsible for the death of this young man and it is not the owner of the property nor the management company. This blame everyone world has gone mad.

Was there negligence?

By MrZip on Thu, 07/21/2022 - 4:52pm.

1. Did the property owner have a duty of care to the victim?
2. Was there a breach of that duty?
3. Did the breach cause the harm (but for the lax security...etc.)
4. Was that breach a "proximate cause" (you should look that up)?
5. Were there damages/harm?

Holding people accountable helps incentivize correcting problems, like poorly lit parking garages or other conditions that make crimes more likely AND foreseeable.

so let's make private property owners responsible

By anon on Thu, 07/21/2022 - 5:43pm.

for what goes on in their neighborhood. This isn't a case of defective locks or inadequate lighting in the parking lot.

“this blame everyone world…”

By berkleealum on Fri, 07/22/2022 - 7:13am.

how old do you think the victim’s father is? probably safe to say 40+ right? saying that to say maybe grief is the culprit here, not your rote incantations about the state of the world.

Well, let's consider another case, then

By adamg on Fri, 07/22/2022 - 11:45am.

Remember the two doctors shot to death in their condo in South Boston's Macallen Building?

Their families sued the condo association and the security company for wrongful death, too. The condo association and the security company moved to have the case dismissed, arguing they had no duty to ensure a killer couldn't simply enter the building and shot them to death.

A couple weeks ago, the judge in the case rejected their request, agreeing there was enough proof to proceed to trial on the case.

Yeah, another bad example

By Username Unknown on Fri, 07/22/2022 - 12:55pm.

By allowing these types of cases to move forward the courts and legal system have been destroyed. Again, in this case there is only one person responsible for this murder.

I think of another example where there was a Halloween party where a fight broke out. One guy was stabbed with a broken bottle. A random guy that did not know either of the parties helped the guy that was stabbed by pressing his shirt onto the would. Same good citizen went to the hospital with the guy even though he did not know him.

Remember, good citizen had never met Mr. stab victim before but he helped him.

Shortly after, good citizen is sued by the stab victim for "not doing enough to prevent him from being stabbed" The case was allowed but finally dismissed after good citizen spent a fortune to defend himself. The bartender was also sued for serving beer in a glass bottle when he "should have known glass bottles could be broken and used as a weapon"