SCRANTON – A PetSmart shopper and her spouse who alleged the business allowed water to pool on the floor of one of its stores, which allegedly caused the wife-plaintiff to fall and suffer a series of severe knee, hip and back injuries, have settled their case.
Jane Principe and Anthony Principe of Lords Valley first filed suit in the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas on Dec. 12, 2022 versus PetSmart, Inc. of Dickson City.
“On or about Oct. 1, 2022, plaintiff Jane Principe was a business invitee inside PetSmart in order to do some shopping. At the time of the fall, defendant’s employees, agents or associates where performing work on the fish tanks while business invitees were walking causing water to splash all over the floor in question where plaintiff Jane Principe fell,” the suit said.
“On the averse said date and time, plaintiff Jane Principe was caused to slip and fall on a wet area inside PetSmart which caused her to fall an sustain injuries. The wet area in question would have been noticed by an employee/agent or associate of PetSmart at the time of, the incident. The fall in question was caused solely by the negligence and carelessness of the defendant PetSmart, and in no way due to any act or failure to act upon the part of plaintiff Jane Principe.”
The suit added that PetSmart was “negligent in failing to reasonably inspect the area in question for any dangerous items on the premises in order to protect customers and avoid injuries to customers,” and “allowed a dangerous condition/item to exist for a reasonable length of time without proper and reasonable inspection and/or taking corrective measures of the same,” among other negligent failures.
“The plaintiff’s fall and injuries are a direct result of the negligence and carelessness of said defendant PetSmart. Plaintiff Jane Principe sustained serious permanent and debilitating injuries to her body including but not limited to her right knee, right hip, lower back and tail bone,” the suit stated.
“As a result of the negligence and carelessness of the defendant, its agents, servants and/or employees, as aforesaid, plaintiff Jane Principe, has experienced great pain and suffering. As a result of the negligence and carelessness of the defendant, its agents, servants and/or employees, as aforesaid, the plaintiff Jane Principe, is unable and has not been able to attend to her usual duties and she will be unable to attend to them in an indefinite time in the future to her great detriment and loss.”
The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on March 6, 2023 for diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount of contested damages at issue, and was followed by the defendant answering the complaint on March 14, 2023.
PetSmart denied that a dangerous condition was permitted to exist on its premises and further answered the complaint with no less than 30 affirmative defenses.
“Under all circumstances, plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. PetSmart denies it was guilty of any negligence or carelessness that was the proximate or direct cause of the alleged damages or injuries sustained by plaintiff. Any injuries or damages caused to and/or sustained by plaintiff was proximately or directly caused by the negligence, recklessness, or carelessness, of person(s) or entity(ies), both named and unnamed, other than PetSmart, and over whom PetSmart exercised or had no control, nor the duty to control. Any negligence or carelessness found to be attributable to PetSmart, which negligence or carelessness is denied herein, is offset by the greater comparative and/or contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff or of other third persons or entities, both named and unnamed. PetSmart breached no duty which may have been owed to plaintiff,” per the answer’s defenses.
“Plaintiff assumed the risk of his injuries which limits or bars all claims asserted by plaintiff. Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole and/or in part by the applicable provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. Plaintiff was contributorily negligent and such negligence constituted more than 50 percent [of the] causes leading to the alleged incident. Thus, plaintiff is not entitled to any relief as claimed herein. It is denied that plaintiff’s alleged injuries or damages are causally related to the incident more particularly described in plaintiffs’ complaint. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred or limited by plaintiffs’ failure to mitigate damages. Plaintiff is estopped by her own actions and conduct from recovery against PetSmart. The incident more particularly described in plaintiff’s complaint was not the foreseeable result of any act or omission on the part of PetSmart. Plaintiff’s injuries or damages, if any, were the result of an intervening or superseding cause.”
UPDATE
10 months later, plaintiff counsel filed a praecipe for discontinuance on Jan. 25, explaining the case had been settled. Terms of the settlement were not outlined.
“Please mark the above matter settled, discontinued and ended with prejudice,” the praecipe stated.
The following day, on Jan. 26, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Judge Robert D. Mariani authorized the discontinuance and ordered the case closed.
For counts of negligence and loss of consortium, the plaintiffs are seeking damages in excess of $50,000 and in excess of prevailing arbitration limits, exclusive of pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest and costs.
The plaintiffs were represented by Christopher A. Piazza of Piazza Law Group, in Dickson City.
The defendant was represented by John M. Wutz and Brian M. Searls of The Chartwell Law Offices, in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 3:23-cv-00396
Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas case 2022-CV-05151
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com