Share This Page

Wilkinsburg man sues URA, property management company

| Wednesday, Feb. 20, 2013, 4:51 p.m.

A Wilkinsburg man who was shot outside Allegheny County Police headquarters in North Point Breeze filed a civil lawsuit Wednesday against the city's Urban Redevelopment Authority and its property management company for not providing better security.

Lamont Johns, whose age was not available, claims the URA and Baker Young Corporation were negligent on March 8, 2011 when David Monroe Bush shot him several times at close range while he was on his way to work at the county's office of property assessments inside the building on North Lexington Avenue.

Johns said he drove off after Bush threatened him with a gun because the two were involved in a car accident. Johns, a contract clerical employee who was working on the county-wide reassessment at the time, said the security guard told Bush he worked in the building and allowed him to wait outside. Johns said Bush attacked him when he went back to work.

Johns said the URA was negligent for not providing reasonable security. He is seeking in excess of $25,000. Gigi Saladna, URA spokeswoman, did not return a call for comment. The building's leasing agent for Baker Young declined comment.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.