Intake Form

Doyle Dennis Avery LLP Secures $4.3 Million Verdict in Fatal Apartment Complex Security Case | Texas Negligent Security Lawyers

Our premises liability and negligent security attorneys have secured a landmark $4.3 million verdict in Harris County District Court, holding apartment complex owners accountable for inadequate security that led to the tragic death of M. Bonilla. This case (No. 2017-08414) demonstrates our firm’s commitment to justice for families affected by negligent apartment security.

Fatal Security Failure

This landmark case arose after intruders gained access to Magnolia Cove Apartments due to severely inadequate security measures, leading to M. Bonilla’s tragic death. Our client, N. Ardon, brought claims individually, as representative of M. Bonilla’s estate, and as next friend of minor E. Bonilla.

Our investigation revealed critical security failures:

  • Broken security gates allowing unauthorized access
  • Insufficient lighting in common areas and parking lots
  • Lack of functioning security cameras
  • Absence of security patrols
  • History of criminal activity that went unaddressed

Through extensive discovery and expert testimony, our trial team proved that both APTMC, LLC (Magnolia Cove Apartments) and Gatesco, Inc. knew about security risks but failed to take appropriate action.

Understanding Apartment Complex Security Obligations

Texas law requires apartment owners to protect residents from foreseeable criminal acts. This includes:

  1. Proper Access Control
  • Working security gates
  • Controlled entry systems
  • Secure locks and doors
  • Monitored access points
  1. Adequate Lighting
  • Parking areas
  • Common walkways
  • Building entrances
  • Stairwells and corridors
  1. Security Systems
  • Surveillance cameras
  • Alarm systems
  • Emergency response protocols
  • Security personnel when warranted
  1. Crime Prevention
  • Regular security assessments
  • Criminal activity monitoring
  • Resident safety communications
  • Swift response to security concerns

Historic $4.3 Million Verdict Breakdown

The Harris County jury recognized the devastating impact of these security failures:

Individual Claims (N. Ardon):

  • $850,000 future damages
  • $450,000 past damages
  • Prejudgment interest from February 2017

Minor Child (E. Bonilla):

  • $1,250,000 future damages
  • $750,000 past damages
  • Additional prejudgment interest

Estate Claims (M. Bonilla):

  • $200,000 in damages
  • Associated interest and costs

Liability Distribution:

  • Magnolia Cove Apartments: 35%
  • Gatesco, Inc.: 65% (triggering joint and several liability)

Foreseeability of Criminal Activity

Our legal team proved the critical element of foreseeability through:

  • Prior criminal incidents at the complex
  • Police reports from surrounding area
  • Security expert testimony
  • Industry standard analysis
  • Crime statistics for the location

This evidence demonstrated that property owners knew or should have known about security risks but failed to act.

Legal Standards for Apartment Security

Texas courts recognize specific requirements for apartment security:

  1. Duty of Care
  • Reasonable security measures
  • Regular maintenance of security features
  • Response to known risks
  • Protection of residents
  1. Industry Standards
  • Access control systems
  • Professional security assessments
  • Crime prevention through environmental design
  • Emergency response protocols
  1. Documentation Requirements
  • Security incident reports
  • Maintenance records
  • Resident complaints
  • Security system testing
  1. Staff Training
  • Security awareness
  • Emergency procedures
  • Resident communication
  • Incident reporting

Impact on Texas Apartment Security Law

This verdict establishes important precedents:

  1. Property Owner Accountability
  • Direct liability for security failures
  • Management company responsibility
  • Joint liability implications
  • Duty to maintain security systems
  1. Security Measure Requirements
  • Modern security technology standards
  • Staffing obligations
  • Maintenance expectations
  • Response time requirements
  1. Damage Calculations
  • Long-term impact consideration
  • Family member compensation
  • Estate recovery rights
  • Interest calculations

Protecting Your Rights After a Security Incident

If you’ve been affected by apartment complex security failures:

  1. Immediate Actions
  • Ensure personal safety
  • Contact law enforcement
  • Document all evidence
  • Seek medical attention if needed
  1. Documentation
  • Photograph security failures
  • Record incident details
  • Gather witness information
  • Keep all communications
  1. Legal Considerations
  • Preserve evidence
  • Report to management
  • Contact experienced attorneys
  • Understand time limitations
  1. Rights Protection
  • Don’t sign management documents
  • Maintain incident records
  • Consider temporary relocation
  • Document all expenses

How Doyle Dennis Avery LLP Can Help

Our firm specializes in:

  • Negligent security cases
  • Apartment complex liability
  • Wrongful death claims
  • Premises liability
  • Complex civil litigation

Our approach includes:

  1. Thorough Investigation
  • Crime scene analysis
  • Security system evaluation
  • Historical incident review
  • Expert consultation
  1. Evidence Gathering
  • Security records
  • Maintenance documents
  • Witness statements
  • Expert testimony
  1. Legal Strategy
  • Multi-defendant litigation
  • Insurance coverage analysis
  • Damage modeling
  • Trial preparation

Contact Us Today

Free Consultation Available

Don’t wait – Texas law limits the time to file claims. Contact our experienced trial attorneys today to protect your rights and seek justice.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Holds that Tuttle and Nicholas Families’ Claims Against Houston Police Officers May Proceed

Houston Police Department officers shot and killed Dennis Tuttle and Rhogena Nicholas in a botched drug raid in 2019. Following their deaths, the Tuttle and Nicholas families’ (the “Families”) filed a lawsuit against the City of Houston, alleging that the officers used excessive force in executing the search warrant and that the search and seizure were unlawful. The Families asserted both direct claims and claims premised on failure to intervene against the individual officers. Importantly, the Families also asserted claims against Lieutenants Todd and Gonzales, who had a role in supervising the other officers, for excessive force and unlawful search-and-seizure based on direct liability and failure to supervise. The Families argued that they sufficiently stated a claim for supervisor liability against Todd. They then argued that the district court correctly concluded that Todd was not entitled to qualified immunity because the allegations against Todd for supervisor liability overcame qualified immunity.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part. First, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the individual officers’ motions to dismiss the Families’ claims for excessive-force and thus allowed those claims against the individual officers to proceed. The Fifth Circuit declined to address the motions to dismiss the search-and-seizure claims asserted against Sepolio, Salazar, Gallegos, Wood, Pardo, Medina, Reyna, Lovings, and Ashraft.
In addition, the Fifth Circuit held that the district court correctly allowed the Families’ failure-to-supervise claim under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 to proceed because the Families alleged multiple specific instances in which the officer fraudulently obtained a search warrant and in which violence occurred, and the officer’s supervisor knew about these infractions, but did nothing to correct them. Regarding Todd, the Fifth Circuit determined that the district court “lacked jurisdiction to enter any judgment respecting Lieutenant Todd.” Thus, the Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s order. Regarding Gonzales, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the Families’ claims against Gonzales for excessive force and search-and-seizure claims based on direct liability. However, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the facts alleged support the inference that Gonzales failed to supervise Goines, and that a causal link exists between his failure to supervise and the actions that ultimately occurred. Thus, the Fifth Circuit held that the district court was correct in allowing the claims against Gonzales to proceed.
Finally, because federal qualified immunity does not apply to state-law claims, the Fifth Circuit declined to address whether the Families’ state-law wrongful death and survival claims against all defendants should be dismissed.
Read the full opinion here (Tuttle v. Sepolio, No. 22-20279, c/w No. 23-20013, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 12834 (5th Cir. 2023):

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/23-20013/23-20013-2023-05-24.html

Doyle Dennis Avery LLP files Lawsuit against Chick-Fil-A Franchise

Doyle Dennis Avery LLP has filed a lawsuit on behalf of our clients who sustained serious injuries after a vehicular collision with a car operated by 210 HOSPITALITY, INC. d/b/a Chick-Fil-A Summerwood (“Chick-Fil-A Summerwood”).  The general personal injury lawsuit seeks to collect damages for the injuries caused by the defendant’s negligent actions and omissions. Doyle Dennis Avery LLP will now aggressively pursue the damages owed to our clients as a result of this vehicular collision accident. Our experienced team of trial lawyers is dedicated to fighting for the rights of our clients and securing the justice and compensation they are entitled to receive.

On or about February 9, 2021, our clients were driving when a vehicle operated by a Chick-Fil-A Summerwood driver struck their vehicle. As our clients were turning onto the road, traveling eastbound and had the right of way, the defendant failed to yield, thereby striking the vehicle. Our clients sustained injuries to their backs, necks, shoulders, ankles, and body generally. The negligent actions of Chick-Fil-A Summerwood was the direct cause of the accident and the injuries to our clients. Doyle Dennis Avery LLP will aggressively pursue justice on behalf of our clients, seeking to hold the defendant accountable for their gross negligence and the harm they have caused. Furthermore, we will work tirelessly to secure the full and fair compensation that our clients are entitled to receive.

As a result of the defendants’ negligent actions and/or omissions, the clients are reasonably expected to sustain damages and in reasonable probability will continue to suffer physical pain and mental anguish for past and future medical care, loss of earnings in the past and future, and other legal injuries.  

Doyle Dennis Avery LLP is a highly experienced team of trial lawyers who have achieved impressive results for their clients. With decades of collective experience, our attorneys have a proven track record of success. Take a look at our case results, client reviews and firm history to learn more about our reputation for excellence. We are dedicated to providing exceptional legal guidance and communication throughout the lawsuit process. If you have been injured due to someone else’s negligence, we invite you to contact Doyle Dennis Avery LLP for a free case evaluation. Our attorneys and staff are committed to helping clients protect their livelihoods and wellbeing. Don’t hesitate to reach out to us today to discuss your case.

Doyle Dennis Avery LLP Files Suit on Behalf of Sexual Assault Survivor

Doyle Dennis Avery LLP recently filed suit on behalf of a sexual assault survivor (“John Doe”). The lawsuit was filed against Defendants Bradley Cope, United Rentals, Inc., and Corwell Enterprises Inc. d/b/a WXYZ Lounge. John Doe worked at Aloft Hotel in Corpus Christi. The lawsuit alleges that John Doe was sexually assaulted multiple times because of the defendants’ acts and/or omissions. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges the following: 

In 2022, United Rentals instructed its employee, Bradley Cope, to travel from California to Corpus Christi, Texas for a work trip. During this period, United Rentals paid for Cope’s and other United Rentals employees’ lodging at Aloft Corpus Christi (the “Hotel”) for several days.   While staying at the Hotel on a work trip, Cope became belligerently drunk on multiple occasions, according to the lawsuit. On multiple occasions, Cope was unable to hold his head up while drinking at the bar. Over the course of days, Cope’s conduct became so aggressive and outrageous that several hotel guests complained about Bradley Cope to the Hotel staff, including to John Doe.  United Rentals, through its other agents and employees at the hotel, witnessed and saw Mr. Cope’s aggressive conduct prior to the assault. Despite Bradley Cope’s level of intoxication, Defendants United Rentals and WXYZ Lounge failed to take any action. Unfortunately, United Rentals and WXYZ Lounge’s failure to take any action against Bradley Cope resulted in Cope sexually harassing and sexually assaulting John Doe, who was employed at the Hotel as a Front Desk Associate.   

The lawsuit further alleges that while Bradley Cope was staying at the Hotel during the work trip, Cope was belligerently drunk and unruly in the Hotel lobby and in the dining area of the Hotel. Indeed, several hotel guests had complained to John Doe and other hotel staff about Bradley Cope. John Doe repeatedly asked Bradley Cope to return to his room. However, Cope refused. Moreover, Cope was also so intoxicated that he was unable to stand up. Although United Rentals’ other employees were present and observed Cope’s extreme level of intoxication, again Defendants took no action. United Rentals did not intervene. Put differently, United Rentals failed to supervise Bradley Cope while Cope was working in Corpus Christi on behalf of United Rentals.    

One night, while John Doe was trying to get Bradley Cope to leave the common areas of the Hotel, Bradley Cope sexually assaulted John Doe again. The lawsuit alleges that Cope sexually assaulted John Doe while in the middle of the hotel lobby and in the dining area. John Doe, a hard-working employee who was on the job and scared of losing his employment and further alarming any of the Hotel guests, again asked Bradley Cope to return to his room. But Bradley Cope again refused to leave. Although Bradley Cope had created a significant disturbance in the Hotel lobby and in the dining area of the Hotel, the Hotel’s other employees, including security personnel, did not intervene. Left with no other options, and in an attempt to protect the Hotel’s other guests, John Doe felt obliged to escort Bradley Cope to his room due to his extremely intoxicated state and apparent inability to physically walk to his room. The lawsuit alleges that when John Doe and Bradley Cope arrived in Bradley Cope’s room, Bradley Cope raped John Doe.

At the time of the occurrence in question, Defendant Corwell Enterprises Inc. d/b/a WXYZ Lounge was a provider of alcohol under the authority of a license or permit issued by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission. John Doe has alleged that WXYZ Lounge had a statutory duty to refrain from serving alcohol to obviously intoxicated patrons. The lawsuit alleges that WXYZ Lounge violated Texas law by providing, under authority of a license, alcoholic beverages to Bradley Cope, who was WXYZ Lounge’s customer and guest, when it was apparent or should have been apparent to the WXYZ Lounge, that Cope was obviously intoxicated to the extent that he presented a clear danger to himself and others.   WXYZ Lounge was negligent because it sold and served alcoholic beverages to Bradley Cope when they knew or reasonably should have known that he was under the influence of intoxicating alcohol. WXYZ Lounge also failed to provide reasonable education, policies, and/or training to employees, agents, servants, and/or representatives regarding the serving of alcoholic beverages to patrons, including Bradley Cope; provided and/or encouraging policies and/or an atmosphere that caused, created, or contributed to a pattern and/or practice among employees, agents, servants, and/or representatives that unreasonably encouraged the excessive and unsafe serving of alcoholic beverages to patrons, including Bradley Cope.  

The lawsuit states that Defendant Bradley Cope is liable to John Doe for sexual assault and battery under the Texas penal code. Bradley Cope intentionally, knowingly, and/or recklessly caused bodily injury to John Doe when he sexually assaulted John Doe. According to the lawsuit, Defendant Bradley Cope is liable to John Doe for assault and battery because he intentionally, knowingly, and/or recklessly caused bodily injury to John Doe when he assaulted John Doe. 

John Doe has also sued United Rentals, Inc. negligence, negligent per se, and gross negligence for the following reasons: failing to properly train its employees and/or agents, including Bradley Cope; failing to supervise their employees and/or agents, including Bradley Cope; failing to hire qualified and adequately trained employees and/or agents its employees, including Bradley Cope; failing to properly screen and/or background check its employees, including Bradley Cope; failing to create and/or enforce adequate safety policies and procedures for employees; failing to take action to prevent the Incident; and other acts deemed negligent and grossly negligent. Bradley Cope was under the supervision and control of United Rentals. The lawsuit alleges that while Bradley Cope was conducting work on behalf of United Rentals, Cope sexually assaulted John Doe. In all, United Rentals is directly liable for its own negligence, which is separate and distinct from the causes of action against Bradley Cope.

John Doe has been forced to seek medical treatment to repair the damage Defendants’ conduct caused John Doe. John Doe suffered – and continues to suffer – irreparable mental anguish due to Defendants’ acts and omissions.

Doyle Dennis Avery LLP is a nationally-recognized team of trial lawyers. Our firm is proud to hold negligent parties accountable. If you or a loved one have suffered due to a company’s negligence, Doyle Dennis Avery LLP will provide a free evaluation of your legal claims.

Doyle Dennis Avery LLP Files Suit After Client Killed At Burdogz Bar and Grill

Doyle Dennis Avery LLP recently filed a lawsuit in Victoria County, Texas against Burdogz LLC, D/B/A Burdogz Bar and Grill (“Burdogz Bar and Grill”) following the death of AquCraigis Watson at Burdogz Bar and Grill for negligent security.


AquCraigis Watson worked as a bartender at Burdogz Bar and Grill. Prior to his death, Mr. Watson had completed a work shift. Before Mr. Watson left, Burdogz Bar and Grill requested that he remain at the restaurant because there was not enough security. Mr. Watson agreed to help. On or about that time, an altercation between restaurant patrons ensued. During the altercation, Mr. Watson was shot and killed. The shooter has since been charged by the Victoria County District Attorney in Mr. Watson’s death.
After Mr. Watson was killed, Doyle Dennis Avery LLP filed a wrongful death lawsuit. Specifically, Burdogz Bar and Grill knew or should have known that the premises required security measures. Burdogz Bar and Grill also knew or should have known of numerous similar violent incidents before the incident forming the basis of the lawsuit, but refused to take reasonable steps provide for the safety and security at Burdogz Bar and Grill. Burdogz Bar and Grill failed to provide adequate security and safety measures to the individuals at Burdogz Bar and Grill.


The condition at Burdogz Bar and Grill was such that it created an unreasonably dangerous condition which Burdogz Bar and Grill knew, or should have known, was unreasonably dangerous. Further, Burdogz Bar and Grill failed to exercise ordinary care to provide reasonable safety and/or to adequately warn Mr. Watson of the dangerous condition. Burdogz Bar and Grill’s failure to correct the condition and/or to adequately warn Mr. Watson constituted negligence. Burdogz Bar and Grill’s negligence was the proximate cause of the incident in question and Mr. Watson’s resulting injuries and death.
Because of Burdogz Bar and Grill’s negligence, Mr. Watson’s mother, wife, and three children have suffered significant harm. In addition, Mr. Watson’s estate is a separate plaintiff in the lawsuit, and the Representative of Mr. Watson’s Estate has sued for recovery for the physical pain, mental anguish, disfigurement, and physical impairment suffered by Mr. Watson prior to his death, and for any medical expenses and funeral expenses of last interment.


Under Texas law, the surviving spouse, children, and parents of the deceased individual may have survival claims. If you lost a loved one because of the negligence of a company, contact Doyle Dennis Avery LLP for a free evaluation of your potential legal claims.

1 2 3 … 7