Course Project
MGMT 597 – Business Law
CASE 49.1 NEGLIGANCE: NEW HAVERFORD PARTNERSHIP V. STROOT and WATSON
Parties
Plaintiff 1 is Elizabeth Stroot, a 33 year old graduate student who has suffered from allergies and asthma since childhood. Stroot was a tenant at Haverford apartments.
Plaintiff 2 is Joletta Watson, friend and roommate of Elizabeth Stroot and a tenant of Haverford apartments from 1990 to 1994.
Defendant is New Haverford Partnership, the owner of Haverford apartments.
Facts
In August 1992, Elizabeth Stroot and a roommate, Joletta Watson, moved into an apartment on the third floor of Haverford Place. (Case Law) While living in this apartment with Watson, Stroot immediately discovered mold around the windows and …show more content…

He also stated that Watson developed an allergy to Penicillium and suffered from permanent upper respiratory problems as a result to her exposure to the mold. Dr. Gordon, a neuropsychologist, another expert witness, studied the mental defects associated with the atypical molds. He evaluated Stroot and came to the conclusion that she suffers from significant cognitive impairment in the areas of attention, concentration, memory and executive functions. He opined these problems were permanent and were a result of her exposure to the mold. Dr. Rose, a physician board certified in pulmonary, occupational and environmental medicine also examined Stroot and opined that she had developed osteopenia as a result of her steroid use while living at Haverford Place. The last expert witness, Michael Lynn, an architect and partner in real estate due diligence firm performed a limited property condition assessment at Haverford Place. He opined that the deferred maintenance on the buildings was excessive and the landlord’s failure to maintain the property was the proximate cause of the unhealthy and unsanitary conditions observed. The jury awarded Stroot $1,000,000 for personal injuries and $5,000 for property damage. Watson was awarded $40,000 for personal injuries. Both Watson and Stroot’s awards were reduced by 22% for their level of contributory negligence.