Posted on 09/26/2003 11:14:13 AM PDT by blam
Woman sues DIP storage facility over bizarre ordeal
09/26/03
By GARY McELROY
Staff Reporter
Wanda Hudson missed Thanksgiving and Christmas 2001 because she was locked in a Dauphin Island Parkway storage unit, Hudson's attorney said Thursday.
In fact, Hudson was padlocked in the unit for 63 days, attorney Mallory Mantiply told a Mobile County Circuit Court civil jury.
Hudson, 44, is a short, plump woman -- sporting fingernails several inches long that curl back into her palms -- but on Jan. 9, 2002, she weighed 85 pounds and was near death, a nurse told jurors.
She is suing the company, Parkway Storage on Dauphin Island Parkway (DIP).
Mantiply told jurors in an opening statement that the bizarre case began in early October 2001 when his client rented a unit from Parkway Storage. Creditors had foreclosed on her home and tossed her possessions into the street, he said.
The facility, containing 456 units with more than 60,000 square feet of storage space spread out over five acres, is located about two miles from her former home, the attorney said.
She rented unit number 611, a 30 feet by 10 feet enclosure, paid a month's rent, then moved her furniture and other belongings inside.
A month later, on Nov. 7, 2001, Mantiply told jurors, Hudson paid another month's rent. And on that very night, while on a routine security check, the facility's manager found Hudson's storage unit unlocked and partially open.
He closed and locked it.
And that was apparently the last anyone saw of Hudson for more than two months.
On Jan. 9, 2002, a customer using a nearby unit heard sounds coming from unit 611.
Mantiply told jurors he expected witnesses to testify that the smell was so overwhelming when the doors were opened that firemen were obliged to use gas masks when they entered.
Later in court on Thursday, Gloria Turner, a former nurse with Providence Hospital, testified that when Hudson was brought into the emergency room she weighed 85 pounds.
"The first indication I had that something was going on was the smell," Turner told jurors. Hudson had apparently been moved into a decontamination unit.
"The odor wafted out of that room and through the emergency room," Turner said.
Hudson's skin sagged on her limbs, Turner said.
She apparently had survived on juice and canned foods, her attorney had said earlier.
Turner said, "She was asking God why he allowed this to happen to her. She was crying almost constantly. .. She was crying, praying, talking, she would go to sleep, wake up, it was a continual process."
Frostbite appeared to have gnawed at Hudson's feet, Turner said. There were areas on her elbows and a thigh that looked like bed sores, caused by not moving for long periods of time, the nurse testified.
Hudson wanted to know what day it was, Turner said, and began crying anew when she realized she had missed Thanksgiving and Christmas.
Dr. William Asher, called by the plaintiff's side, told jurors he studied Hudson's case after her time in the hospital.
Her condition when discovered in the unit, Asher said, was of "advanced starvation, unusual to find in medical circumstances in America today."
Defense attorney Bert Taylor on Thursday did not dispute that Hudson had spent more than two months in the storage unit. But did she ever make an effort to be found, yell out, bang on the metal door, scream to make her plight known when anyone came near?
He told jurors to expect testimony from another customer at the facility, who stored books in a unit two doors down who was there nearly "every single day" of Hudson's ordeal, and never heard a thing.
"There was no yelling, no screaming, no beating on the doors, no nothing," Taylor said. "No one knew she was in there."
And as for why she was in there, he said, "I don't know."
He asked jurors to consider whether his client, Parkway Storage, and its personnel, did anything unreasonable under the circumstances of Hudson's bizarre silence.
"Yes, she was locked in there," Taylor said. "But why she was there, and what efforts she made to get out, we'll let her tell you."
The trial was to continue this morning before Circuit Judge Rick Stout.
I'm not familiar with these storage units but the ones I see around here have a garage door type opening. I would think this woman would have heard the door closing and being locked.
I don't think she ever intended it to go as far as it did.
My guess is the woman will receive a large settlement, the watchman will be fired,the company will install panic-buttons inside with alarms and the lawyers will meet for dinner the night after the settlement.
As I understand it, it's more along the lines of a religious requirement.
Not being LDS myself, I can't give you any real info other than that after a couple of hours carrying plastic buckets of grain and water in the Houston summer heat, it's really, really heavy.
No, I made no such assertion. The defense's attorney stipulated to the fact that she was imprisoned. Intention would generally only be factor in a criminal case, not a civil case like this one.
I assert your implication re: "imprisoning with intent" is unfounded and contradictory to your scolding in being "completely unqualified to make such a rash statement"
No, the implication you assert is in error. See above.
my hunch is that she heard the security guard close the door and did nothing for she knew all along that 611 was going to be her home. That's why she nver made any noise. But clearly the plan backfired on Day 1 when the Sec. Guard did the ol' lockeroo (again, his intent is unknown). Eventually she couldn't take it any more and started pounding on the door. How she could "live" with that stech is beyond me
That may in fact be how it happened. I imagine that more information will be made available if this goes to trial.
That's what I'm a-thinkin'.
My statement was correct in the context I made it, and no where was intention mentioned or inferred.
maybe what would have helped ME out was if you had written instead : The defense team claims that "no private entity has the right to imprison anyone, regardless of any contract violation."
I don't think that would have helped you out since I have no idea whether the defense team claims that. It is my statement and does not say anything about intent.
I apologize for putting words in your sentence; I read as I speak and there was room in your original post for my mistake
Apology accepted.
Either way I intend (LOL) to follow this case
Me too.
and as to your point RE: intent in civil cases ain't as important as in civil cases you are correct. However, mitigating factors (such as intent, or lack thereof) may turn a jury's decision one way or the other (or find the def. "responsible" but award damages for only a buck)
I wish that were still the case. Ah, the good old days!
I do truly hope the Stg Unit's Ins. company does not fold on this one
I would agree if I thought that the facts (which I don't know yet) and the probability of success (which I doubt) were on their side. If this women was locked in their rental shed for any reason, settling would be probably be the fiscally smart thing to do.
but as you say, we'll have to wait and see
Please ping me if you hear anything new about this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.