Opinion ID: 1139006
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Second Prong: Does a colorable defense exist?

Text: The conservators cite the following as support for their contention that a colorable defense to the merits of Nevels' case exists: (1) [T]he facts are clear that the attack was in fact the act of an intruder. (2) [I]t is clear ... that the attacker came through an unlocked door [and that] the unlocked door was not due to any fault of Mrs. Rich, but rather Mrs. Nevels' roommate. (3) Clearly, defendant proved ... there were defenses of contributory negligence and unforeseeable intervening acts of a third party. (4) And the evidence does not support the damages award. Appellant's Brief at 12-13. Nevels counters that the conservators offered no testimony to demonstrate any reasonable conduct on the part of the defendant in maintaining reasonable security in the boarding house premises which is located in a slum section of Jackson. To the contrary, the only testimony addressing the events surrounding the assault suffered by Ms. Nevels relates to what [security measures were taken] after the [assault]. Appellee's Brief at 8-9. Finally, Nevels contends that she presented convincing testimony and exhibits to prove damages; for example, she presented the expert testimony of Barbara Goff, M.D., who treated her for psychiatric problems and emotional upset due to the assault.