Settlement reached in Janesville rape lawsuit
JANESVILLE — The Fort Atkinson woman raped in the Janesville Mall parking lot in December 2005 has settled her lawsuit.
Michelle L. Young sued the mall, Kohl’s Department Stores and the estate of her attacker, Christopher J. Brown, 35, claiming basic security measures could have prevented the rape.
Brown was arrested two days after the Dec. 12, 2005, rape. He confessed and hung himself in the Rock County Jail two days later.
The jury trial ended in Rock County Court on Wednesday after three days of testimony. Attorneys on both sides agreed to a settlement, said Scott Schroeder, Young’s attorney.
Attorneys couldn’t comment on the settlement because it is confidential.
During opening arguments, James Hammis, Young’s attorney, said Young’s life has been damaged because of the rape, partially because of post-traumatic stress disorder.
Kohl's had one camera capable of showing the parking lot where Young was raped, but it was pointing toward the sidewalk outside the door, Hammis said.
Kohl's didn't have any loss-prevention staff on duty the day of the rape, and no one was viewing the camera, he said.
Richard Hemming, the attorney for the mall and Kohl's, said cameras are helpful in solving crime, but they don't prevent crime.
It also would have been difficult for security to see inside the van because of its closed doors and tinted windows, Hemming said. No one in the area reported seeing or hearing anything.
The mall and Kohl’s aren’t negligent for the rape, Hemming said, and nothing would have stopped Brown, who said he was willing to go to prison for the crime.
Four other sexual assaults were previously reported at the mall dating to December 1999, Hammis said.
Young was raped at 3 p.m. in her van parked outside Kohl's. Brown pushed her into the back of the van and attacked her.
After Brown's death, DNA linked him to the 2004 rape of a woman who was left bound and partially naked along Janesville's bicycle trail.
Sep 23, 2009 at 4:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Seabee, I'm sure someone somewhere has made a similar argument, but in general, government bodies are insulated from such claims. Look at the Madison case where the 911 center dropped the call: once they intercept a call, they have a duty of care to perform, and they didn't follow through. But in terms of crime in public places, a city's provision of police protection is "reasonable care" that allows for the fact that police cannot be everywhere at once.
.
This is just case law and case law is what it is. You can dispute case law but you would have to have a very broad new state or federal law on negligence to alter that situation.
Sep 23, 2009 at 4:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
could shopping not be considered a recreational activity?
"http://www.iceagetrail.org/PDF/Landowner_Information_Recreational_Use_Statute.pdf"
Sep 23, 2009 at 2:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Nowhere in here dose it actually say that the Mall or Kohl’s are actually paying any money out to this woman. On CCAP it lists the attacker’s estate as the debtor and says that his estate is the only debtor to this woman. It is terrible what happened to this woman however all of you are speculating about the Mall and Kohl’s. All proof shows that she is getting paid by the attacker’s estate not anyone else.
Sep 23, 2009 at 1:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
So J-villean, By that rational, the woman who was raped on the bike trail should be able to sue the city, because by building the trail, they are inviting her onto it.
Sep 23, 2009 at 12:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
The legal term for this is "duty of care", and it's a well-established legal principle. It applies, for instance, if a child invited to a party drowns in your backyard pool. When you invite someone onto private property, you have certain responsibilities to take reasonable measures to look out for their safety.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_car...
.
In this case, the history of other sexual assaults and (per prior articles) the lack of changes to mall security as a result was, shall we say, not real good for the defense. That said, this is a private SETTLEMENT between the parties. It is not something imposed by the law.
Sep 23, 2009 at 12:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
As heartbreaking as this is, I don't how they have any responsibility either.
.
Its SOMETHING ELSE how a reckless driver can hit someone/someone's property with their vehicle and get off free by calling it an "accident" and somehow a store is at-fault through NOTHING they did?????
Sep 23, 2009 at 6:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
It can only be attorney greed that would rationalize that the mall and Kohls would be responsible for the unfortunate rape of this woman in the parking lot.
Sep 23, 2009 at 2 a.m.
Suggest removal
The same way you are 10% at fault just for being there, when someone rear ends you while stoped at a liht, sign etc.
Sep 23, 2009 at 12:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
I don't understand. How in the world is anyone other than the rapist culpable in this case?
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.