On June 9, 2026, a Prince George’s County jury delivered one of Maryland’s most significant verdicts in recent memory — $71.39 million awarded to Godlove Djapa, an 18-year-old who suffered catastrophic, life-altering injuries after jumping from a burning apartment unit. Believed to be the largest personal injury award in Prince George’s County history, the case has sent shockwaves through the landlord and property management community, and for good reason. At its core, this verdict is a landmark lesson in fire code violations apartment complex liability — and what happens when property owners neglect the most basic fire safety obligations they owe to tenants.
The Djapa Verdict: What Happened and Why It Matters in 2026
The fire itself occurred in May 2022 at the Lilly Garden apartments, but the legal reckoning arrived four years later. According to the Expert Institute, the building had no functioning sprinklers and no audible fire alarms at the time of the blaze. Godlove Djapa, then 18 years old, was trapped in a burning unit with no warning and no suppression system to slow the flames. Facing rapidly spreading fire, he made the desperate decision to jump 15 to 20 feet from the building. The fall left him paralyzed from the chest down, with spinal fractures, broken ribs, and traumatic brain damage — injuries that will define the rest of his life.
The jury’s breakdown of damages tells the full story of his suffering: $31,500 in past medical expenses, $2 million for past pain and suffering, $4.5 million for future pain and suffering, and $1.5 million for future medical care — with the total reaching $71.39 million. Perhaps most striking is the contrast with the property owner’s pretrial settlement offer of just $35,000. That offer was rejected, and the jury’s verdict dwarfed it by a factor of more than 2,000, sending an unmistakable message about how seriously courts and juries now treat fire code violations apartment complex liability cases.
Critically, Maryland imposes no cap on non-economic damages, which allowed the jury to fully compensate Djapa for the human cost of his injuries — not just his medical bills. As the Maryland General Assembly’s statutes reflect, the state has long protected plaintiffs’ rights to full compensation in cases involving severe negligence.
Negligence Per Se: How Fire Code Violations Create Automatic Liability
One of the most powerful legal theories at work in cases like Djapa’s is negligence per se. Under this doctrine, when a landlord violates a statute or regulation specifically designed to protect tenants from harm — such as fire safety codes requiring functioning sprinklers and audible alarms — that violation is treated as automatic negligence. The plaintiff does not need to separately prove that the landlord acted unreasonably. The breach of the statute is the negligence.
This matters enormously in fire code violations apartment complex liability cases because it removes one of the most contested elements of a personal injury claim. Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute explains that negligence per se applies when the defendant violated a law intended to prevent the type of harm that occurred, and the plaintiff belongs to the class of people the law was designed to protect. Tenants living in apartment buildings are precisely the people fire codes exist to protect.
In the Djapa case, the absence of functioning sprinklers and audible fire alarms at the Lilly Garden apartments was not a technicality — it was a direct, documented failure to meet the most fundamental fire safety obligations owed to residents. That failure, established through inspection records and expert testimony, gave plaintiffs’ counsel a powerful negligence per se foundation that the defense could not easily overcome. The jury’s verdict reflects how effectively that theory translates into accountability when the facts are this clear.
Maryland’s adoption in 2026 of the 2021 International Building Code, International Residential Code, and Energy Conservation Code as baseline standards for new construction and major renovations statewide has only sharpened the legal landscape going forward. Property owners and managers now face an even more clearly defined set of obligations — and plaintiffs’ attorneys have an increasingly precise framework for establishing what compliance required and where defendants fell short.
Fire Safety Failures and Catastrophic Injuries: The Data Behind the Verdicts
The Djapa verdict does not exist in isolation. It sits within a broader pattern of large verdicts and substantial settlements driven by fire safety failures and building code violations across the country. In the first quarter of 2026 alone, data tracked by DK Law identified 40 personal injury settlements and verdicts across 18 states, with a combined value of $189.9 million and a median payout of $1.05 million. That data reflects a litigation environment in which juries and insurers are taking fire-related injury claims seriously — particularly when code violations can be documented.
Fire injuries occupy a particularly severe category within personal injury law. Burns, spinal cord injuries, traumatic brain injuries, and smoke inhalation damage can require decades of medical care, rehabilitation, and assistive services. The gap between what insurance companies initially offer and what courts ultimately award in these cases is often staggering — a dynamic the Djapa case illustrates with unusual clarity.
A February 2026 settlement reported by Virginia Lawyers Weekly offers another instructive data point. A $7 million settlement was reached on behalf of a tenant who suffered severe burn injuries after a corroded gas pipe exploded at a Virginia apartment complex. That case, like Djapa’s, turned on documented infrastructure failures that a reasonable property manager should have identified and corrected. The settlement value — while far below Djapa’s verdict — reflects how seriously fire and explosion injury claims are being valued even when they resolve before trial.
Across both cases, the common thread is straightforward: when a property owner’s failure to maintain safety systems can be documented, whether through inspection records, maintenance logs, expert analysis, or prior complaints, the resulting claims carry substantial value. Juries respond to evidence that a preventable catastrophe was allowed to happen through neglect.
How Building Code Violations Dramatically Increase Settlement and Verdict Value
Not every apartment fire injury case results in an eight-figure verdict. But building code and fire code violations — when they can be established — are among the most powerful value drivers in these claims. Here is why.
First, code violations provide an objective, documented standard of care. Rather than debating what a “reasonable” landlord would have done, plaintiffs can point to a specific regulation, a specific requirement, and a specific failure. That clarity is persuasive to juries and makes defense arguments about reasonableness far less effective.
Second, code violations frequently support punitive or enhanced damages arguments. When a landlord knew or should have known about a code deficiency and failed to correct it, that pattern of conduct can suggest the kind of conscious disregard for tenant safety that justifies damages beyond mere compensation.
Third, the discovery process in these cases often reveals a paper trail that compounds liability. Inspection reports, failed reinspections, tenant complaints, maintenance requests, and prior citations all become evidence of how long the dangerous condition existed and how many opportunities the property owner had to fix it before someone was hurt.
Maryland’s 2026 adoption of updated building code standards — including the 2021 IBC and IRC — means that going forward, the baseline expectations for property safety are even more precisely defined. For cases involving post-adoption construction or major renovations, plaintiffs will have an even cleaner framework for demonstrating what compliance required and where defendants fell short.
What Tenants and Injury Victims Should Know Right Now
If you or someone you love has been injured in an apartment fire — or in any incident connected to a building code or fire code violation — the steps you take in the immediate aftermath matter enormously for the strength of any future claim.
Document everything. Photograph the scene, the damage, and your injuries as soon as it is safe to do so. If there were visible failures — missing sprinkler heads, disconnected alarm systems, blocked exits — capture that evidence before the property owner has an opportunity to make repairs.
Request records. Fire inspection reports, building permit histories, and prior citation records are often obtainable through public records requests. These documents can reveal whether the dangerous condition was known to the owner long before your injury occurred.
Preserve witness information. Neighbors, first responders, and property employees may all have relevant knowledge about the condition of the building before the incident. Identifying and preserving their contact information early can be critical.
Seek legal counsel promptly. Maryland’s statute of limitations for personal injury claims is generally three years from the date of injury, but certain procedural steps — including preserving evidence and placing parties on notice — benefit from early action. An experienced personal injury attorney can assess the facts of your case, identify applicable building codes and fire safety regulations, and develop a strategy for maximizing your recovery.
The $71.39 million Djapa verdict and the $7 million Virginia settlement both underscore the same point: when property owners fail to maintain fire safety systems and tenants are catastrophically injured as a result, the legal system has powerful tools to hold them accountable. Knowing your rights — and acting on them — is the first step.
Frequently Asked Questions About Fire Code Violations and Apartment Liability
What is negligence per se in the context of fire code violations apartment complex liability?
Negligence per se is a legal doctrine that treats the violation of a safety statute or regulation as automatic negligence, without requiring the plaintiff to separately prove that the defendant acted unreasonably. In apartment fire cases, if a landlord failed to maintain functioning sprinklers, working fire alarms, or proper egress as required by applicable fire codes, that failure constitutes negligence per se. The plaintiff still needs to prove causation and damages, but the core negligence element is established by the code violation itself. This is one of the most powerful tools available in fire code violations apartment complex liability litigation.
How did the Djapa case result in a $71.39 million verdict when his medical bills were much lower?
The vast majority of the Djapa verdict consists of non-economic damages — compensation for pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and the ongoing human cost of catastrophic, permanent injuries. Maryland does not cap non-economic damages in personal injury cases, which allowed the jury to award amounts that reflect the true severity of what Djapa experienced and will continue to experience for the rest of his life. His past medical expenses of $31,500 were a fraction of the total, but the jury recognized that living with paralysis, spinal fractures, broken ribs, and traumatic brain damage from age 18 onward carries a cost that far exceeds any medical bill.
Can I sue my landlord if my apartment building had fire code violations during a fire?
Yes. If you were injured in an apartment fire and the building had fire code violations — such as non-functioning sprinklers, inaudible or absent alarms, blocked exits, or other safety failures — you may have a strong personal injury claim against your landlord or property management company. The key elements are establishing that the code violation existed, that the landlord knew or should have known about it, and that the violation contributed to your injuries. An attorney experienced in fire code violations apartment complex liability can evaluate the specific facts of your situation and advise on the strength of your claim.
Does Maryland cap the damages you can recover in a fire injury lawsuit?
Maryland does not cap non-economic damages in personal injury cases, which distinguishes it from many other states. This means that juries in Maryland are free to award whatever amount they believe fairly compensates a plaintiff for pain, suffering, disfigurement, and loss of life’s pleasures — without a statutory ceiling. The Djapa verdict is a direct example of this: the jury awarded tens of millions of dollars in non-economic damages based on the severity of his permanent injuries. Economic damages, such as medical expenses and lost wages, are also fully recoverable without a cap.
What evidence is most important in an apartment fire injury case involving building code violations?
The most valuable evidence in these cases typically includes: fire inspection records and any prior citations or failed inspections; maintenance logs showing whether safety systems were regularly tested and serviced; tenant complaints or written communications about fire safety concerns; fire department and investigator reports from the incident itself; expert testimony from fire safety engineers or building code specialists; and photographic or video evidence of the conditions at the time of the fire. In cases like the Lilly Garden apartment fire, the absence of functioning sprinklers and audible alarms was central to the plaintiff’s case. The earlier and more thoroughly that evidence is preserved, the stronger the resulting claim tends to be.
Thomas B. Harrison is a personal injury legal consultant with extensive experience connecting injury victims with qualified attorneys across the United States. He specializes in helping people understand when they need legal representation and how to find the right personal injury attorney for their specific situation. Thomas is not an attorney and the information he provides is for educational purposes only.