. .

Invest in your success.
JVRA helps lawyers win cases by providing critical information you can use to establish precedent, determine demand and win arguments.


DEFENDANT’S Landlord's Negligence – Defendant leases residential property to plaintiff, exposing her to toxic mold on the premises – Failure to take remedial measures to rid the property of mold – Facial tingling, recurrent sinus infections, skin irritation and allergy symptoms.

Bucks County, PA

The female plaintiff in this negligence action argued that the defendant landlord failed to properly take action against mold growth on the premises and failed to warn the plaintiff about the dangerous condition before the plaintiff signed a lease to live in the premises. The defendant denied being negligent and argued that measures were taken to treat the mold and the plaintiff was made fully aware of the past conditions and current conditions of the premises.

On February 21, ________, the plaintiff rented a residential property from the defendant. Prior to the plaintiff moving into the rental property, it had been leased by another tenant. During that tenant’s stay in the building, the tenant complained to the defendant about water infiltration and accumulation and the possibility of mold. The defendant contracted with a company that performed an indoor air quality study. The study found mold spores and toxins and made several recommendations for the treatment of the property. After the report was made the defendant charged the tenant for the study and when the tenant failed to pay for the study, the landlord had the tenant evicted.

Shortly after the tenant was evicted the plaintiff signed a lease with the defendant for the same property. No remedial measures were done to address the mold and toxins between the eviction of the tenant and the plaintiff moving in. Furthermore, the defendant never warned the plaintiff of the condition of the premises. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was negligent in renting the property to the plaintiff when the defendant knew or should have known that the premises was contaminated, failing to properly perform remedial measures to remove contaminates from the property and failing to secure the premises from water infiltration and accumulation.

As a result, the plaintiff suffered recurrent sinus infections, fatigue, facial tingling, and allergy like symptoms, ear pain, localized skin irritation and gastrointestinal disturbances. The defendant denied all allegations of negligence and argued that remedial measures were taken to rid the rid the premises of toxins and mold and the defendant alleged that the plaintiff was fully aware of the past and current condition of the premises.The jury found for the defendant on all counts.

To read the full article, please login to your account or purchase

5 ways to win with JVRA

JVRA gives you jurisdiction-specific, year-round insight into the strategies, arguments and tactics that win. Successful attorneys come to the table prepared and use JVRA to:

  1. Determine if a case is winnable and recovery amounts.
  2. Determine reasonable demand for a case early on.
  3. Support a settlement demand by establishing precedent.
  4. Research trial strategies, tactics and arguments.
  5. Defeat or support post-trial motions through past case histories.

Try JVRA for a day or a month, or sign up for our deluxe Litigation Support Plan and put the intelligence of JVRA to work for all of your clients. See our subscription plans.