Case Background
This legal dispute began when Carol Cruz, a tenant living at 101 Meadow Gate Road in Granby, Connecticut, suffered a severe fall inside her apartment. The property owner and landlord, Halmar, Incorporated, maintained the premises, including the interior stairways. On the night of December 26, 2021, around 11:45 p.m., Cruz attempted to walk down the stairs from the second floor to the first floor. During her descent, she slipped and tumbled down the stairwell.
Cause
Cruz attributed her fall directly to the condition of the stairway handrail. She alleged that the handrail was dangerously defective because it was not continuous, stood at an insufficient height from the steps, and lacked a shape that a human hand could easily grasp. Specifically, she claimed the 2X6 deck railing used as a handrail violated multiple building and fire safety codes because its perimeter was too large to catch during a fall.
Injury
The fall resulted in significant physical trauma for Cruz, most notably a fractured right hip. Beyond the initial break, she reported ongoing pain, discomfort, and a restricted range of motion that limited her daily activities. She expressed concerns that these injuries might result in permanent disability.
Damages Sought
In her initial filing, Cruz sought monetary compensation for the losses she endured. These claims included the costs for medical care and treatments she had already received, as well as the anticipated expenses for future medical attention. She officially stated that the amount in demand exceeded $15,000, excluding interest and costs.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
The litigation moved through the Hartford Superior Court over several years as both sides prepared for a jury trial. The central conflict focused on whether the landlord had failed in its duty to keep the apartment in a reasonably safe condition or if the tenant had simply failed to watch where she was going.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Carol Cruz
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Gary J. Strickland
· Experts for Plaintiff(s): David A. Stroh | Mark W. Tebbets
Defendant(s): Halmar, Incorporated
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Eileen R. Becker
· Experts for Defendant(s): Carl S. Cianci
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
The legal teams presented two very different versions of why the accident occurred. Cruz’s attorney argued that the landlord had known—or should have known—about the unsafe stairs for a long time but did nothing to fix them. On the other side, the defense counsel argued that the property was fine and that the responsibility for the fall rested entirely with Cruz's own actions.
Claims
Cruz brought several specific claims regarding the stairway's non-compliance with safety regulations. She alleged that the Defendant violated section 1014.4 of the state building code by failing to install a continuous handrail. Furthermore, she pointed out that the handrail was six inches lower than the minimum height required by the building code and two inches lower than the fire safety code standards. Her team argued that the 2X6 railing was inherently unsafe because it was physically impossible for a person to grip it effectively to stop a fall.
Defense
Halmar, Incorporated filed a formal answer that denied nearly all of Cruz’s allegations of negligence. The company raised a "Special Defense," shifting the blame to Cruz. They argued that if she had been injured, it was because she failed to keep a proper lookout, failed to use her senses, and did not take necessary precautions to observe her surroundings. They essentially claimed she did not use reasonable care for her own safety given the conditions.
Jury Verdict
The trial concluded on February 13, 2026, after the jury reviewed the evidence and heard the arguments from both parties. The jury chose to find in favor of the Defendant, Halmar, Incorporated, rather than the Plaintiff. By selecting this verdict, the jury determined that the landlord was not legally responsible for the injuries Cruz sustained in her fall.
Judge Chavey officially accepted and recorded the verdict on the same day. Because the jury found in favor of the Defendant, Cruz received no monetary award for her medical expenses or the physical pain she described in her complaint. The legal proceedings ended with the Court siding with the property owner, effectively closing the case after nearly four years of litigation.
