Case Background
On the morning of June 12, 2020, Maria Vasquez-Alfaro began her day like any other. She stepped outside a residential property at 35 North Taylor Avenue in Norwalk, Connecticut, where she was lawfully present. As she descended the exterior stairs and held onto the handrail, the railing gave way. In an instant, she lost her balance, tumbled down, and struck the ground. The fall left her with serious injuries that required extensive medical treatment.
Vasquez-Alfaro later filed a lawsuit in March 2022 against the property’s owner, Gennaro Cappuccia. She alleged that Cappuccia failed to maintain the stairs and handrail in a safe condition. She claimed the rail had not been properly installed and that building code violations made the premises unsafe. She also argued that Cappuccia knew or should have known of the dangerous condition but failed to take steps to repair it.
Cappuccia denied responsibility. In his defense, he claimed that Vasquez-Alfaro failed to watch where she was going and did not exercise reasonable care for her own safety. The case moved forward through pleadings and discovery and eventually reached a jury trial in May 2024.
Cause
The Plaintiff based her case on negligence. She argued that Cappuccia:
Failed to properly install and maintain the stair handrails.
Ignored Connecticut State Building Code requirements that called for continuous guards or handrails on stairways.
Neglected to warn her of the unsafe condition.
Knew or should have known of the defective condition through reasonable inspection.
The defense countered with a special defense of comparative negligence. They claimed Vasquez-Alfaro contributed to her own injuries by failing to keep a lookout, by not observing the condition, and by failing to act as a reasonably careful person under the circumstances.
Injury
Physical Harm
The fall fractured Vasquez-Alfaro’s right arm and right wrist. She also suffered injuries to her right foot and leg. Doctors documented persistent pain in her arm, wrist, and lower body. She required medical treatment including hospital care, diagnostic testing, orthopaedic visits, and ongoing therapy.
Emotional and Functional Impact
Beyond the physical pain, she experienced emotional distress and anxiety. The injuries interfered with her daily activities and restricted her ability to live as she once had. She lost time from her employment and reported a reduced capacity to earn a living. These long-term consequences became central to her claim for non-economic damages.
Damages
Vasquez-Alfaro sought compensation for:
Economic damages: Hospitalization, orthopaedic care, diagnostic imaging, physical therapy, and prescription costs. She also claimed lost wages from missed work and argued that she might face future medical expenses.
Non-economic damages: Pain and suffering, emotional distress, anxiety, and the loss of enjoyment of everyday life.
She requested damages greater than $15,000, which positioned the case for jury trial.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Maria Vasquez-Alfaro
Counsel for Plaintiff: Michael J. Tortora
Defendant: Gennaro Cappuccia
Counsel for Defendant: Miles N. Esty
Claims Asserted
The Plaintiff’s counsel told the jury that Cappuccia had a duty as the property owner to provide safe stairs and handrails. They stressed that building codes required continuous guards or handrails and that Cappuccia failed in this basic obligation. Counsel argued that Maria’s fall was no accident it was the predictable result of negligence. They urged the jury to hold the landlord accountable for exposing lawful visitors to unnecessary danger.
They also emphasized the human impact of the fall. Maria’s fractured wrist and arm left her unable to perform ordinary tasks. She lived with constant pain, could not work as before, and carried permanent reminders of that morning’s accident. Counsel asked the jury to recognize both her economic losses and the emotional toll.
Defense
Defense counsel painted a different picture. They argued that Maria failed to act with caution. According to their theory, she should have noticed the defect or avoided leaning heavily on the handrail. They claimed her own inattention caused the fall, not any negligence on Cappuccia’s part.
They also attacked the scope of her damages. Defense experts suggested that some of her pain came from pre-existing conditions and that not all of the treatment she sought was medically necessary or related to the fall. Counsel urged the jury not to grant what they called an excessive award.
Jury Verdict
On May 31, 2024, the jury delivered its verdict. They found in favor of the Plaintiff, Maria Vasquez-Alfaro. The jury concluded that Cappuccia’s negligence caused the accident and that Maria bore no responsibility for her own injuries.
They awarded her $7,789.62 in economic damages, covering hospital bills, orthopaedic visits, and therapy costs. They also awarded $16,666.67 in non-economic damages for her pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life. The total award came to $24,456.29.
The verdict sent a clear message: property owners must maintain safe conditions for those lawfully on their premises. For Vasquez-Alfaro, the decision provided both financial relief and vindication after years of litigation.
