Trial Magazine

Estate of Otis Perdue v. Quick Stop and Deli, Inc., No. 18EV003807 (Ga. St. Ct. Fulton Cnty. Aug. 19, 2019)

Otis Perdue was leaving a convenience store in College Park, Ga., one afternoon when two armed men confronted him and demanded money. When Perdue resisted, one of the men shot him four times. The men fled the scene, and Perdue was discovered lying in the parking lot near his car. He later died after being rushed to the hospital. Perdue is survived by his young son, for whom he had been the primary caregiver.

Despite the area’s high crime rate and the history of robberies at the convenience store, the property owner did not install surveillance cameras or implement other security measures to protect customers. Atlanta attorneys N. John Bey, Stuart Bagley, and Kevin Williams represented Perdue’s estate on behalf of his son in a negligence action against the property owner alleging inadequate security that allowed the armed men—who were convicted of Perdue’s murder—to commit the crime.

The property owner knew about the violence in the neighborhood and had been concerned enough to install bars on the store’s windows to deter theft but never made changes that would safeguard customers. “They had bars on the windows to protect the product, to protect the laundry detergent and the cereal, but they had nothing to protect the people,” Bey said. Leading up to the trial, another man—a father of two young children—was shot and killed in the same parking lot. Even after Perdue’s death several years earlier, the property owner still had not made efforts to increase store security.

At trial, the attorneys focused on the relationship between Perdue and his son—and the long-term impact that the father’s death would have because of the defendant’s failure to implement adequate security measures. “They were very close. The father had taken time off from work to be the primary caregiver. He was part of the PTA,” Bey explained. “My opening and closing were all about the father-son dynamic, all that was lost, and what that would mean for generations to come in this family.”

Framing that relationship was also crucial to building a damages argument that would resonate with jurors. Perdue was a stay-at-home dad, so the attorneys did not have concrete numbers to offer jurors about the financial consequences of his loss to his family. “In that scenario, it’s always an issue of what a life is worth. It had to be about the father-son relationship, and what the son does not have now, and how very real that is,” Bey explained.

Because Perdue’s son would not be attending the trial or testifying, the attorneys delved into how prospective jurors would react to his absence. In voir dire, the attorneys questioned potential jurors about whether they would be able to award damages if they did not hear directly from the son. Ultimately, the jurors were persuaded, awarding $52 million in damages: $2 million for expenses, costs, and ­Perdue’s pain and suffering to his son’s mother, who administers the estate, and $50 million to his son for the value of Perdue’s life.

It was an emotional case, Bey noted, and the jurors felt those emotions during the trial. After the verdict, Bey had the opportunity to speak to the jury foreperson, who said that the jurors were swayed by the authenticity evident throughout the trial.

The local community’s safety was another important thread—with a daycare down the street from the convenience store and residents fed up with the violence. Following the verdict, Bey said, community members were grateful for the outcome. Other businesses in the area also have taken notice and started to address their own security deficiencies.

Kate Halloran is the senior associate editor at Trial.