The Bullet Came Through Your Bathroom Wall at Head Height — and It Did Not Have To
You did not imagine it. A bullet came through the wall of your home at the level of your head while you slept, and you found it lodged in the bathroom a member of your family uses every single day. You have lived in this house for more than forty years. You raised a family here. You are not overreacting. You are describing a life-altering event, and Texas law recognizes it as such — even when, by grace, the projectile missed flesh by inches.
That is the moment Lisa and Alan Lipman are living right now, in their Meyerland home on North Braeswood Boulevard, in southwest Harris County. ABC13 reported on June 17, 2026, that the Lipmans discovered a stray bullet lodged in their bathroom wall at head height, fired from or near the Life at Jackson Square Apartments — the chronically crime-plagued property across the street formerly known as Nob Hill. The Lipmans, who have owned their home for more than four decades, found the bullet nine days before the news report. The leasing office at the complex has been closed during business hours. The City of Houston has an active civil lawsuit pending to shut the property down. The Lipmans now fear for their safety in a house they have spent a lifetime making theirs.
This page is written for the Lipmans, and for the other Houston families who live beside a chronic-crime property and have begun to wonder whether the law has anything to say about it. It does. We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC, and we work negligent-security and premises-liability cases against apartment owners, management companies, and security vendors in Harris County and across Texas. Ralph Manginello has spent 27+ years in courtrooms, including federal court. Lupe Peña spent years inside a national insurance-defense firm — the rooms where adjusters decide what a claim is worth — and now sits on the family’s side of the table, fully fluent in Spanish. The consultation is free, there is no fee unless we win, and the line is answered around the clock: 1-888-ATTY-911.
What Happened to the Lipmans — and Why It Has Become the Meyerland Story
The Lipmans’ story is not new. It is the most recent chapter in a years-long pattern that the City of Houston, the Houston Police Department, and the local press have all documented in public records. To understand why the bullet came through their bathroom wall, you have to understand the property across the street.
The Property Across the Street: Life at Jackson Square (fka Nob Hill)
Life at Jackson Square Apartments sits on North Braeswood Boulevard in the heart of Meyerland. The complex has been the subject of repeated ABC13 investigative reporting, and the documented record includes a 2017 fatal shooting, multiple subsequent murders and robberies, and an accumulating stack of code-enforcement violations that the City of Houston has litigated in its own civil court. The City filed a civil public-nuisance lawsuit against the property within the last year, seeking to shut the complex down. The City of Houston does not bring a public-nuisance action lightly. The standard for invoking Chapter 10 of the Code of Ordinances is not minor — the City must show the property constitutes a chronic threat to public safety.
Management has been unresponsive. The leasing office has been closed during business hours. Tenants and neighbors alike describe an atmosphere of neglect: red tags, boarded windows, overgrown lots, inadequate lighting, inoperable gating, security cameras that are not monitored. The conditions are not a secret. They are the subject of HPD calls-for-service that any private investigator or plaintiff’s attorney can pull from the Houston Police Department through a Texas Public Information Act request.
The City’s Own Lawsuit Confirms What the Lipmans Live With
When the City of Houston sues a property owner to abate a public nuisance, the City’s lawyers put on evidence of police calls, code inspections, victim statements, and expert assessments. That evidence becomes the City’s file. Under Texas law, the City’s nuisance findings — and the City’s expert and inspection records — are admissible in a private civil case as party admissions by the property owner (or quasi-admissions where the City is acting in its regulatory capacity) and as evidence of the conditions the owner knew or should have known about. In practical terms, the City’s pending lawsuit does two things for the Lipmans at once: it locks in the foreseeability record, and it produces discovery the Lipmans’ own lawyers can leverage without duplicating the cost. We talk more about that leverage below.
The Foreseeability Record — Why the Owner Knew, and What That Knowledge Means in a Texas Courtroom
Texas law does not hold a property owner liable for every crime that happens on or near the property. The owner is liable when the criminal act was foreseeable — when the owner knew, or should have known, that criminal conduct was likely and failed to take reasonable steps to address it. The 2017 fatal shooting of ten-month-old Messiah Mitchell at the complex, combined with the subsequent murders, robberies, and chronic police calls, is the foreseeable-conduct record that turns a “stray bullet” from a freak accident into a negligent-security case.
The 2017 Murder of Messiah Mitchell
In 2017, a ten-month-old baby was fatally shot at the property. That is not a disputed fact. It is a public record. The murder of a ten-month-old in a residential complex is a triggering event that puts every reasonable owner on notice that the property has a violent-crime problem requiring immediate remediation. A reasonable owner installs lighting. A reasonable owner engages competent security. A reasonable owner controls access. A reasonable owner screens tenants. A reasonable owner responds to police calls with operational changes. A reasonable owner does not let the leasing office stay closed during business hours while a baby was shot in the complex the year before.
Subsequent Murders, Robberies, and Code Violations
The documented record does not stop in 2017. Multiple subsequent murders and robberies at or near the property are reflected in HPD calls-for-service and in the City’s nuisance case file. Code violations — red tags, dangerous-building findings, and other municipal citations — have accumulated. The conditions that contribute to crime in multifamily settings (broken lighting, inoperable gating, unmonitored cameras, untrimmed vegetation that creates hiding places, no controlled access, no on-site security presence) are the conditions the City’s inspectors have flagged. The Lipmans’ bullet did not fall out of a clear blue sky. It came out of a property whose foreseeability record had been building for years.
The Legal Standard: Timberwalk and Austin v. Kroger
The Texas Supreme Court has not given negligent-security defendants a free pass. The controlling standard comes from Timberwalk Apartments v. FDIC, 4 S.W.3d 98 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, pet. denied), and was reaffirmed by the Texas Supreme Court in Austin v. Kroger Texas, L.P., 465 S.W.3d 193 (Tex. 2015). Under those cases, a property owner’s duty to protect against third-party criminal conduct exists, and the scope of that duty is measured by what was foreseeable. Where prior similar crimes are documented, the duty is triggered. The Lipmans are not required to show that the apartment owner committed the crime. They are required to show that the criminal act was foreseeable, that the owner failed to take reasonable protective steps, and that the failure was a proximate cause of the harm. The 2017 infant murder is the kind of “prior similar incident” that Texas courts have repeatedly held triggers the duty. The subsequent pattern locks it in.
Three Civil Pathways — Why Neighbors Are Stronger Than Tenants
Tenants of the apartment complex have a premises-liability claim under the invitee framework, but the Lipmans are stronger than tenants for one simple reason: they are not on the property at all. They are the neighbors. That positioning opens three legal theories that are often more powerful than a conventional premises-liability invitee case, and we walk through each below.
Private Nuisance (The Strongest Theory for Neighbors)
Texas common law recognizes private nuisance as a substantial and unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of land. A nuisance does not require the plaintiff to set foot on the defendant’s property. It requires only that the defendant’s use of its own land substantially and unreasonably interfere with the plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of theirs. A bullet coming through the bathroom wall is a paradigmatic nuisance injury: the Lipmans cannot safely use their bathroom, cannot sleep normally, cannot invite grandchildren over, cannot sit in their own yard in the evenings without flinching at sounds that did not used to frighten them. The chronic violent crime, the code violations, the trash, the boarded windows, the overgrown vegetation, the inadequate lighting — all of it is the kind of cumulative, ongoing, and substantial interference Texas courts have recognized as a private nuisance. The owner does not have to have fired the bullet to be liable for the nuisance that produced it.
Trespass to Land
Texas law recognizes a cause of action for trespass where there is a physical invasion of the plaintiff’s land. A bullet is a physical invasion. The Lipmans’ bathroom wall was pierced. The projectile entered their home, their most protected space. The cause of action is straightforward, and the damages include the cost of repair, the cost of any forensic or ballistic examination, the diminution in market value of the home, and the mental anguish that flows from having the sanctity of one’s home invaded by a stranger’s act of violence.
Negligent Security / Premises Liability (As Backup Theory)
Even though the Lipmans were not on the apartment property, a negligent-security theory remains viable on the theory that the owner’s failure to control criminal conduct on the property was the proximate cause of harm to a foreseeable plaintiff — and the Lipmans, as the immediately adjacent neighbors, are about as foreseeable a plaintiff as you can imagine. The same Timberwalk / Austin v. Kroger foreseeability record that supports private nuisance supports the negligent-security theory, and the two claims can be pleaded in the alternative.
Negligence Per Se (Code Violations)
Houston’s nuisance and dangerous-building ordinances (Chapter 10 of the Code of Ordinances) supply a statutory standard of care. When an owner violates a municipal ordinance designed to protect a class of persons that includes the plaintiff, and the violation proximately causes the plaintiff’s harm, Texas law treats the violation as negligence per se — negligence as a matter of law. The City’s pending lawsuit is built on exactly those code provisions. The City’s red tags, dangerous-building findings, and inspection records become the Lipmans’ evidence of the standard of care the owner breached.
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED)
Texas recognizes NIED where the plaintiff is within the zone of danger and fears for their own safety because of a nearby traumatic event caused by the defendant’s negligence. The Lipmans are not bystanders to a stranger’s accident. They are direct victims. A bullet came through their bathroom wall at head height. The bathroom is a space they use every day. The zone-of-danger doctrine supports a robust NIED claim, particularly where the Lipmans can show physical manifestations: sleep disturbance, anxiety, hypervigilance, intrusive thoughts, the need for counseling or sleep medication. Texas courts have allowed NIED recovery in cases where the plaintiff feared for their own safety, and the Lipmans’ fear is the direct, traceable consequence of a projectile that missed them by inches.
The Damage to the Lipmans — Compensable Even Without a Physical Impact Injury
Texas juries will not rubber-stamp a large non-economic verdict in a pure fear case, and we will not promise one. But a near-miss at head height in a bathroom is not a “pure fear” case. It is a documented physical invasion, a documented foreseeability record, a documented conscious-indifference pattern, and a documented injury to a 40-year homeownership. The damages stack up.
The Bullet, the Wall, and the Repair
The first number is the cost of restoring the bathroom. That includes drywall repair, paint, texture matching, and the cost of a forensic ballistic examination by a qualified firearms examiner. Ballistic analysis can run $5,000 to $25,000 depending on the case, and it does important work: it can match the projectile to a specific weapon type and caliber, narrow the universe of firearms, and corroborate (or contradict) witness accounts of where the shot came from. The Lipmans should not repair the bathroom wall until the bullet has been photographed in place, the wall section preserved, and the projectile turned over to a qualified expert under chain of custody.
The Mental Anguish of a Bathroom That Is No Longer Safe
Texas recognizes mental anguish damages in both nuisance and NIED cases. Mental anguish is not the same as general worry. It is documented disturbance — sleep loss, intrusive thoughts, anxiety, the inability to use a bathroom without thinking about a bullet, the way ordinary sounds at night have become terrifying. Treating-provider testimony, counseling records, sleep medication, and the testimony of family members and neighbors are how this damages category is built. The Lipmans should establish care with a counselor or therapist experienced in post-shooting trauma within the first two to four weeks. A documented treatment record is the difference between a damages claim that reads as real and one that reads as opportunistic.
Diminished Home Value — 40 Years of Equity Put at Risk
The Lipmans have owned their home for more than forty years. In a Houston neighborhood like Meyerland, where generational homeownership is the norm, forty years of equity is not an abstract number. It is a family’s largest single financial asset, and it is now stigmatized by a documented stray-bullet penetration. Texas recognizes diminution-in-value damages where a real and measurable impairment to market value can be shown. For the Lipmans, that requires a Houston real-estate appraiser experienced in stigma/nuisance diminution — someone who can compare pre-incident and post-incident comparable sales in the immediate area and quantify the difference. The figure can run from $20,000 to $100,000 or more, depending on the depth of the stigma and the strength of the comparable-sales analysis. If the Lipmans elect to leave — to give up the home they have built over four decades — relocation and moving expenses are also recoverable.
Punitive Damages Viable on the Conscious-Indifference Record
Punitive damages in Texas are recoverable on clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with malice, gross negligence, or conscious indifference to a known risk. The Lipmans’ record is unusually strong on this point: a 2017 fatal infant shooting, multiple subsequent murders and robberies, accumulated code violations, a City of Houston civil lawsuit to shut the property down, a chronically closed leasing office, and a still-operating complex without meaningful remediation. Texas statutory caps under Chapter 41 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code (the greater of $200,000 or two times economic damages plus non-economic damages up to $750,000) constrain punitive damages as a matter of statute, and those caps have been subject to constitutional scrutiny since the Texas Supreme Court’s decision in Height v. State Farm. The argument that the statutory cap is unconstitutionally low in an egregious case is preserved, but even within the cap, punitive damages send the message a routine compensatory verdict cannot.
The Injunctive Remedy — Security Upgrades or Closure
Money cannot make the Lipmans feel safe in their home. A court-ordered injunction can. Texas courts have the power to order specific security upgrades — controlled access, working lighting, monitored cameras, on-site security personnel, tenant screening, code-compliance audits — or, in egregious cases, to order closure of the offending property paralleling the City’s civil suit. The injunctive remedy is often the outcome the family actually wants, and it is the leverage that breaks defense intransigence at mediation. A defendant that faces a credible threat of court-ordered closure is a defendant that settles.
The City of Houston’s Pending Public-Nuisance Suit — How It Helps the Lipmans
The City of Houston filed a civil public-nuisance lawsuit against Life at Jackson Square within the last year. That lawsuit is a parallel proceeding the Lipmans’ own civil case can ride. Here is how the leverage works in practice.
Leveraging Parallel Discovery
When the City sues a property owner under Chapter 10 of the Code of Ordinances, the City’s lawyers conduct extensive discovery: code-inspection reports, expert assessments, police calls-for-service summaries, witness interviews, tenant complaints, ownership and management records, and prior civil and criminal history of the property. The Lipmans’ civil case can request that the City produce its file and can use the City’s experts and findings to anchor the private case. A property owner that has already lost the argument about whether it is a nuisance in front of the City is a property owner that does not want to lose it again in front of a Harris County jury. The City’s pleadings, the City’s expert reports, and the City’s inspection findings are admissible as party admissions and as evidence of the conditions the owner knew about.
The Injunctive Remedy — Security Upgrades or Closure
The same equitable powers the City is asking the court to exercise — abatement by security upgrades or by closure — are available to the Lipmans in their private case. A private civil action seeking injunctive relief is not dependent on the City’s case moving first. The two proceedings can run in parallel, and the Lipmans’ case can press for relief that complements what the City is asking for. In some scenarios, a private injunctive remedy can move faster than the City’s case, particularly if the property owner’s conduct changes during the litigation and the Lipmans’ lawyers are in a position to argue for an immediate order to install security measures or face escalating penalties for non-compliance.
The Evidence That Is Disappearing Right Now
A negligent-security case is won or lost on the evidence the lawyers freeze in the first weeks. The evidence falls into five categories, and each one is on a clock. We walk through what exists, who holds it, how fast it dies, and what we do to stop the clock.
The Bullet Itself
The bullet is still in the Lipmans’ bathroom wall. It is the single most important physical piece of evidence in the case. Ballistic comparison can match it to firearms recovered from the property or from suspects, can identify the caliber and weapon type, and can corroborate or contradict accounts of the direction of fire. The bullet must be photographed in place, the wall section preserved, and the projectile turned over to a qualified firearms examiner under chain of custody. The Lipmans should not repair the bathroom wall until the bullet is recovered. The clock is days, not weeks.
HPD Calls-for-Service and Incident Reports
Houston Police Department calls-for-service at the property are the backbone of the foreseeability record. A Texas Public Information Act request to HPD’s Public Information Office can produce years of calls-for-service data, incident reports, and arrest records at Life at Jackson Square. The PIA response cycle is typically one to two weeks, but early filing preserves the earliest records before routine purging. The HPD incident report for the stray-bullet shooting itself should be requested the day the Lipmans call us. The DR (department record) number anchors the civil complaint and the eventual spoliation demand.
Surveillance Footage (30–90 Day Retention)
Surveillance footage at the apartment complex and at surrounding businesses may capture the shooter, the direction of fire, vehicle descriptions, or fleeing suspects. Most commercial surveillance systems in the Houston area operate on a 30- to 90-day retention cycle, and some properties wipe footage in days. A spoliation letter to Life at Jackson Square management, to neighboring businesses (gas stations, corner stores, restaurants), to Loop 610 and Meyerland-area traffic cameras operated by TxDOT or by the City, and to METRO if a bus stop is in the area, goes out within 48 to 72 hours. Once that letter is out, deletion of footage becomes spoliation — destruction of evidence with intent to deprive the other side of its use — and Texas law recognizes intentional spoliation of evidence as a separate tort and as grounds for severe sanctions.
The City’s Code-Enforcement File
The City of Houston’s nuisance and dangerous-building case file, including the pending lawsuit pleadings, expert reports, code-enforcement inspections, and red-tag records, is obtained through a PIA request to the City Legal Department and by monitoring the Harris County District Clerk docket for filings and orders. The City’s file is the single most efficient source of evidence about the property’s documented conditions, and it can typically be obtained within two to four weeks of filing the request.
Property and Management Records (Piercing the LLC)
Identifying the right defendants requires piercing the single-purpose real-estate LLC that almost always owns a chronic-crime apartment complex. Deed records from the Harris County Clerk, Secretary of State filings, and management agreements establish the chain of ownership and management. The management company is often a separate entity with separate insurance. A skilled negligent-security lawyer will follow the management contract back to the insurance tower that actually pays the claim.
The Lipmans’ Own Treatment Records
In a near-miss case with no physical impact injury, the Lipmans’ mental-health treatment records are central to damages. The Lipmans should establish care with a counselor or therapist experienced in post-shooting trauma within the first two to four weeks. A documented treatment record — counseling notes, sleep medication prescriptions, anxiety treatment — is the difference between a damages claim that reads as real and one that reads as opportunistic. The treatment record is also the answer to the most common defense move in a near-miss case: the argument that the plaintiff was not really injured.
The Insurance Adjuster’s Playbook — And Our Counter to Each Move
The apartment owner’s insurance carrier is on the case within hours, even if the property management is not. Insurance adjusters and their defense counsel run a recognizable playbook in negligent-security cases, and the play names below are not hypothetical — they are the moves we see every time. The counter to each move is the move you make before they can run theirs.
Play 1: “This Is a Criminal Act by a Third Party — Not Our Client’s Responsibility”
This is the first thing the carrier says, and it is technically true in isolation: the shooter fired the bullet, not the apartment owner. The carrier is hoping you do not know the law. The law is the Timberwalk / Austin v. Kroger foreseeability standard, and the carrier knows it. Texas does not impose strict liability for criminal acts, but it does impose liability where the criminal act was foreseeable and the owner failed to take reasonable protective steps. A 2017 infant murder, multiple subsequent murders, code violations, and a City closure lawsuit are not “the property owner had no idea.” They are the opposite. The counter is to anchor the foreseeability record before the carrier can reframe the case as a random act of violence.
Play 2: The Quick “Goodwill” Check with a Release Attached
Within days, a representative of the property owner or the management company may approach the Lipmans with a check — sometimes labeled as “goodwill,” sometimes as “help with repairs” — and a release printed on the back or attached. The check is small. The release is the point. Once signed, the release cuts off every claim the Lipmans have, including future mental anguish, future medical care, and the property-diminution claim. The counter is to not deposit the check, to not sign the release, and to not speak with the property owner’s representative before counsel is involved. A “goodwill” payment that closes out a six-figure damages case is not goodwill. It is a buy-low attempt dressed up as neighborly concern.
Play 3: The “Just Tell Us What Happened” Recorded Statement
The carrier’s adjuster or a defense investigator will call and ask the Lipmans to “just walk us through what happened” so they can “process the claim.” That call will be recorded. The carrier’s goal is to lock the Lipmans into a version of events before they have talked to a lawyer, before all the details are in, and before the mental-anguish picture is documented. Statements made under the stress of the moment, even innocent ones, become anchors the carrier uses to limit the claim months later. The counter is to redirect every call to us, to take no recorded statement, and to provide nothing in writing until the evidence has been preserved and the damages documented.
Play 4: Surveillance and Social Media Monitoring
The carrier will check the Lipmans’ social media. They will look for posts that suggest the Lipmans are not as frightened as they say, or that they are still enjoying the home, or that the incident did not affect their daily life. They will photograph the home from the street to see whether the family is still there. The counter is for the Lipmans to stay off social media about the case, to make no posts, and to assume every public post is being read by the other side.
Play 5: Delay Until You Are Desperate Enough to Settle Low
Negligent-security cases move slowly by default. The carrier knows that. They will offer a low number early, and if the Lipmans reject it, they will go silent for months. The goal is to exhaust the family’s patience and pressure them into accepting a number that does not reflect the case. The counter is to know the real value of the case from day one — the property damage, the mental anguish, the diminution, the punitive exposure, the injunctive leverage — and to refuse to settle for a number that does not reflect it. We do not let the carrier run out the clock. We set our own clock and we honor it.
The Proof Story — How a Case Like This Is Actually Built
People ask us what we actually do. Here is how a negligent-security case in Harris County is built, week by week, from the day you call to the day the case resolves.
Week One
Day one, we send a spoliation letter to the property owner, the management company, and any contracted security vendor. The letter identifies the Lipmans’ potential claims, demands preservation of all surveillance footage, access-control logs, leasing records, repair work orders, police-call correspondence, and any communications with security vendors. Day one, we also file Texas Public Information Act requests with HPD and the City of Houston for the property’s calls-for-service data, the City’s nuisance case file, and the stray-bullet incident report. In parallel, a professional photographer is dispatched to document the property conditions (trash, boarded windows, overgrown grass, red tags, inoperable lighting, broken gating). The bullet is preserved. The Lipmans are connected with a counselor experienced in post-shooting trauma.
Months One Through Three
Pre-suit investigation continues. We retain a Houston-based premises-liability expert with verifiable testimony history in similar apartment negligent-security cases, a licensed security consultant to opine on industry-standard Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) measures the owner should have implemented, a Houston real-estate appraiser for diminution-in-value, and a treating psychologist for the Lipmans’ NIED damages. We obtain the PIA responses, the City’s case file, and the HPD calls-for-service data, and we begin the documentary build.
Months Three Through Six
We file suit in Harris County state district court — the venue is mandatory and favorable to negligent-security plaintiffs. We serve the property owner, the management company, and any contracted security vendor. We serve broad written discovery: ten years of police calls, code violations, prior lawsuits, tenant complaints, ownership and management records, insurance policies, security vendor contracts, and maintenance records. We notice depositions of the property owner, the property manager, the leasing agent, the security vendor, and the City’s code-enforcement inspector.
Months Six Through Twelve
Depositions happen. The property owner explains under oath why the 2017 infant shooting did not result in security upgrades. The property manager explains why the leasing office is closed. The security vendor explains the scope of its patrol. The City’s inspector explains the conditions on the ground. Mediation is approached only after the City’s own lawsuit has produced discovery that can be leveraged, but we are ready to mediate early if the carrier makes a credible offer once the foreseeability record is locked in. A Stowers demand is prepared once the property owner’s CGL limits are confirmed, framing the demand at a number designed to push the carrier into policy-limits exposure given the City’s parallel closure action.
Trial
If the case does not resolve, we try it. Voir dire explores the panel’s exposure to ABC13’s coverage of the property, their views on apartment-owner responsibility, and their views on gun violence in Houston — these jurors will know the Lipmans, the complex, and the broader pattern. Damages presentation humanizes the forty-year homeownership and the bathroom near-miss through a day-in-the-life video and treating-physician testimony. The diminishment-of-home-value claim is quantified with a clean appraiser report rather than left speculative. And we brief and pursue a permanent injunctive remedy paralleling the City’s lawsuit — security upgrades, gating, on-site guards, lighting, and tenant screening — which is often the outcome the family actually wants, and which can break defense intransigence even before a verdict.
What the Lipmans Should Do (and Not Do) in the First 72 Hours
Do Not Repair the Bathroom Wall
The wall is evidence. The bullet is evidence. The trajectory is evidence. Repairing the wall before the bullet is photographed in place, the wall section preserved, and the projectile turned over to a qualified firearms examiner can permanently compromise the case. Take photographs. Mark the position. Do not touch the wall. Do not let a handyman or contractor talk you into “fixing it while we’re here.” The clock for repair starts after the evidence is preserved.
Do Not Speak to Management, the Owner, or Any Insurance Adjuster
Every word you say to the property owner, the management company, or any insurance adjuster is a word the other side will use. Refer every call to us. If someone shows up at the door, tell them you have retained counsel and that all communication goes through our office. Do not give a recorded statement. Do not sign anything. Do not accept any check, including a “goodwill” check. The check is not free money. It is a release that closes out your case.
Do Not Post About It on Social Media
The carrier and its investigators are checking. They are looking for posts that suggest you are not as frightened as you say, or that you are still using the home as before, or that the incident did not affect your daily life. They will photograph the home from the street. Stay off social media about the case. Make no posts. Assume every public post is being read by the other side.
Do Get Mental-Health Support
The mental-anguish component of this case is real, and it is compensable, and it requires documentation. Establish care with a counselor or therapist experienced in post-shooting trauma within the first two to four weeks. The treatment record is the answer to the most common defense move in a near-miss case. Do not wait until the case is in litigation. The record needs to start now.
Do Call a Lawyer Today
You have two years to file suit under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 16.003, and you do not want to be filing on the eve of the deadline. But the bigger urgency is the evidence. Surveillance footage wipes in days. Police calls can be purged. The bullet should be preserved now. The City’s case file is being built now. The HPD report should be obtained now. The consultation is free, there is no fee unless we win, and the line is 1-888-ATTY-911.
What Other Houston Neighbors Living Near Chronic-Crime Properties Should Know
The Pattern That Makes Your Case Foreseeable
If you live in Houston and your neighbor’s property has a documented history of police calls, code violations, shootings, drug activity, or a City of Houston public-nuisance action, the legal standard of foreseeability under Timberwalk and Austin v. Kroger is being met. You are not required to live in fear, and you are not required to wait for someone to get hurt before the law has anything to say. The owner of the chronic-crime property has a duty, and the duty runs to foreseeable plaintiffs — which includes the people in the homes next door.
The Two-Year Clock Is Already Running
Under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.003, personal-injury and property-damage claims in Texas have a two-year statute of limitations. The clock starts when the cause of action accrues — which, for a stray-bullet case, is the date the bullet entered the home. The clock does not wait for the City’s lawsuit, does not wait for the criminal case, and does not wait for the family to feel ready. Two years is enough time to build a case properly, but it is not enough time to wait.
A Private Civil Case Is Not a Criminal Case
Houston Police Department is investigating the stray-bullet shooting as a criminal matter. The criminal case is a separate proceeding with a separate burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) and a separate goal (punishment of the shooter). The civil case is a different case with a different burden (preponderance of the evidence) and a different goal (compensation for the Lipmans, and an injunction that changes the property). The civil case can move forward even if the criminal case never identifies a shooter. Texas law does not require the Lipmans to wait for a criminal conviction before pursuing a private civil case against the property owner. The two proceedings serve different purposes, and the civil case does not depend on the criminal case.
Frequently Asked Questions
How long do I have to file a negligent-security lawsuit in Texas?
Two years from the date the cause of action accrues, under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.003. For a stray-bullet case, the clock generally starts on the date the bullet entered the home. Two years is the outer limit; the evidence that wins these cases disappears in days to weeks, so the practical deadline is much sooner than the legal deadline.
Can I sue the apartment owner even if the shooter is never identified?
Yes. Texas law does not require you to identify, arrest, or convict the shooter before pursuing a civil case against the property owner. The civil case is about the owner’s negligence — the failure to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable criminal harm. The shooter’s identity is not a prerequisite to the property owner’s liability. The City of Houston’s pending public-nuisance suit against the same property confirms the standard.
What if the bullet missed me and no one was physically hurt?
You can still recover. Texas recognizes damages for property damage (including the cost of repair and diminution in home value), mental anguish, fear, loss of sense of security in one’s own home, sleep disturbance, and loss of enjoyment of property. NIED recovery is available where the plaintiff is in the zone of danger and fears for their own safety because of a nearby traumatic event. A bullet at head height in a bathroom you use every day is a documented physical invasion, not a “pure fear” case. The damages can be substantial even without a physical impact injury.
What is the “foreseeability” standard in a Texas negligent-security case?
Under Timberwalk Apartments v. FDIC, 4 S.W.3d 98 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, pet. denied), and Austin v. Kroger Texas, L.P., 465 S.W.3d 193 (Tex. 2015), a property owner’s duty to protect against third-party criminal conduct is measured by foreseeability. Where prior similar crimes are documented — shootings, robberies, drug activity, code violations — the duty is triggered. The 2017 fatal infant shooting at Life at Jackson Square, combined with subsequent murders, robberies, and code violations, is the kind of foreseeability record that turns a “stray bullet” into a negligent-security case.
Can I recover punitive damages in a Texas negligent-security case?
Yes, on clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with malice, gross negligence, or conscious indifference to a known risk. Texas statutory caps under Chapter 41 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code (the greater of $200,000 or two times economic damages plus non-economic damages up to $750,000) constrain punitive damages as a matter of statute, and those caps have been subject to constitutional scrutiny since Height v. State Farm. The argument that the statutory cap is unconstitutionally low in an egregious case is preserved, but even within the cap, punitive damages send the message a routine compensatory verdict cannot.
What should I do in the first 72 hours after a stray-bullet incident?
Do not repair the wall. Do not sign anything. Do not give a recorded statement. Do not post on social media. Photograph the bullet in place. Obtain the HPD incident report number. Call a lawyer. The evidence that wins these cases disappears in days, and the preservation letter needs to go out within 48 to 72 hours.
How is the case value calculated when no one was physically injured?
Case value combines property damage (repair, ballistic analysis, diminution in home value), non-economic damages (mental anguish, fear, loss of security, sleep disturbance, NIED), and the injunctive remedy (security upgrades or closure). For a documented near-miss at head height in a bathroom, with a strong foreseeability record and a chronic-crime property across the street, recoverable damages can run from $75,000 to $400,000 or more depending on the strength of the evidence and the venue. The injunctive remedy is often the outcome the family actually wants, and it is the leverage that breaks defense intransigence at mediation. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.
What if I do not speak English?
Lupe Peña, our associate attorney, is fully fluent in Spanish and leads the firm’s representation of Spanish-speaking families. Attorney911 serves Houston-area families Hablamos Español — full legal service in Spanish, end to end. The consultation is free, and the call is answered around the clock at 1-888-ATTY-911.
Does the City of Houston’s pending lawsuit help my private case?
Yes. The City’s lawsuit, the City’s expert reports, the City’s inspection records, and the City’s nuisance findings become evidence in your private case as party admissions and as evidence of the conditions the owner knew about. The two cases can run in parallel, and the City’s discovery can be leveraged to anchor the private case without duplicating the cost. The injunctive remedy the City is asking for — security upgrades or closure — is the same remedy available to you in your private case, and the two proceedings can complement each other.
What if the apartment owner is a shell LLC?
Single-purpose real-estate LLCs are common in chronic-crime apartment cases, and they are designed to make it hard to collect a judgment. The counter is piercing the LLC back to the parent entity, identifying the management company (which often carries separate insurance), and following the management contract back to the insurance tower that actually pays the claim. The CGL and umbrella policies of the parent entity, the management company, and any contracted security vendor are the targets. A skilled negligent-security lawyer will identify the right defendants and the right insurance towers before filing suit.
About Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC
We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC, a Houston-based trial firm built on the idea that people in a legal emergency deserve someone who picks up the phone right now. Ralph P. Manginello founded the firm in 2001 after spending his early career as a trial lawyer (licensed by the State Bar of Texas since 1998; admitted to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas), and he has 27+ years of courtroom experience. Ralph was a journalist before he was a lawyer, and he explains the way a sharp friend would — clearly, plainly, without the legalese. He has fought in the BP Texas City refinery-explosion litigation, and the firm has recovered more than $50 million for Texas families since 1998. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.
Lupe Peña is our associate attorney and the firm’s inside-the-insurance-industry translator. Before he joined us, Lupe spent years inside a national insurance-defense firm — the rooms where adjusters decide how to deny, delay, and devalue claims like yours. He knows how carriers code claims, how defense software sets reserves, and how the other side’s playbook actually runs. Now he runs that playbook in reverse, for the family. Lupe is fully bilingual and leads the firm’s representation of Spanish-speaking families. Hablamos Español — full legal service in Spanish, end to end.
We work negligent-security, premises-liability, car and truck crash, wrongful death, brain injury, workplace injury, refinery and offshore injury, construction accident, toxic tort, insurance bad faith, hazing, criminal defense, and DWI cases in Harris County and across Texas. The consultation is free, there is no fee unless we win, and the line is answered around the clock: 1-888-ATTY-911. You can also visit our contact page to request a confidential consultation, learn more about our practice, or read about how we work at our practice areas and through our explainer videos on the questions families actually ask.
If a bullet came through your wall, or if a chronic-crime property next to your Houston home has put your family at risk, do not wait for the next call from an adjuster who sounds friendly and is not. The evidence starts disappearing now. The call is free. The fight is ours if you want it. 1-888-ATTY-911.
This page is legal information, not legal advice for any specific case. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. The consultation is free and confidential. Contacting the firm does not create an attorney-client relationship.