PITTSBURGH – Satalio’s Restaurant has denied cross-claim liability levied against it by plaintiffs who said the establishment had a non-compliant outdoor wooden deck attached to its property, from which they fell more than a year ago and sustained several serious injuries in the process.
Leeann Marie Hlavac and Darrell Lamar Evans first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Feb. 9, 2023 versus Satalio’s, Inc. All parties are of Pittsburgh.
“At all times relevant hereto, based upon information and belief, the facts and occurrences stated below took place on or about Sept. 20, 2022, at approximately 1 a.m., on an outdoor, above-grade, wooden deck affixed to the side of the situs. At all times relevant hereto, the deck was approximately 12 feet x 75 feet and elevated approximately 12-15 feet above-grade,” the suit said.
“Upon information and belief, Satalio’s is a bar/restaurant, open to the public, and located in the Mt. Washington section of the City of Pittsburgh. At all times relevant hereto, plaintiffs were patrons of Satalio’s, therefore business invitees, were lawfully at the situs of defendant and there existed a dangerous condition at the situs.”
The suit added that this dangerous condition consisted of “an above-grade deck that was equipped or constructed with a damaged, decayed, dilapidated, structurally unsafe type or kind of hand railing and/or guard rail system, repaired and/or maintained via the usage of multiple plastic zip ties, thereby creating the risk of serious bodily injury or harm from a fall hazard and/or the inability to prevent and/or ameliorate the risk of harm from a fall; and, there was an ongoing failure to have the situation properly remedied.”
“It is contended that prior to the subject incident, defendant knew or had reasons to know the deck was elevated above-grade such that a hand rail and/or guard rail system free from damage, decay, dilapidation, structural unsafe construction was required; and, that the deck was unsafe, repaired and/or maintained via the usage of multiple plastic zip ties, not code complaint and/or below industry standards for safe and proper deck construction. At all times relevant hereto, defendant allowed invitees, generally; and, plaintiffs specifically, unrestricted use and access to a deck that was not equipped with a structurally safe hand railing or guard rail; and, the absence of this safety equipment at the situs on the date-of-loss was a direct, substantial and proximate cause of plaintiffs’ injuries,” the suit stated.
“In fact, the City of Pittsburgh, Department of Permits, Licenses, and Inspections, on Sept. 21, 2002, following an inspection of the deck and situs the day following the railing failure, issued a Violation; specifically, Section 2015 IPMC 108.1.1, stating, ‘deck or structure gave way...[An] unsafe structure is one that is found to be dangerous to the life, health, property of safety of the public or the occupants in the event of fire, or because such structure contains unsafe equipment or is so damaged, decayed, dilapidated, structurally unsafe or of such faulty construction or unstable foundation, that partial or complete collapse is possible.’ Due to the fact that defendant failed to obtain the necessary building permit[s] prior to constructing the 12 ft. x 75 f. and elevated approximately 12-15 feet above-grade deck on the situs, the City of Pittsburgh, Department of Permits, Licenses, and Inspections, on Sept. 21, 2002, admonished defendant to take correction actions; specifically, ‘[Secure] valid permit(s) and correct condemnation violations or remove entire deck.”
At that time, the plaintiffs alleged that they “fell from the above-grade deck approximately 12-15 feet onto a hardened cement surface and suffered severe, traumatic and permanent injuries requiring ambulatory, long-term and ongoing medical care.”
On April 11, 2023, the defendant filed preliminary objections, which sought to strike all allegations of recklessness (and thus, the desire for punitive damages) from the complaint.
“The complaint contains no facts supporting willful, wanton, outrageous or reckless conduct against defendant. Plaintiffs aver baldly that the deck at issue was dangerous as it was damaged, decayed, and/or dilapidated, and that defendant had reason to know of said dangerous condition. Plaintiffs simply aver that they ‘fell’ after coming into contact with the otherwise undefined ‘dangerous condition.’ These allegations are generic, largely legal in nature, and do not support willful, wanton, outrageous and reckless conduct against defendant warranting a punitive damage award,” per the objections.
“A reading of the complaint as is gives defendant no information as to how plaintiffs ended up on the ground. Pennsylvania is a fact-pleading state and requires that a pleading define the issues and that every act or performance essential to that act be set forth in the complaint. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(a) requires that ‘the material facts on which a cause of action or defense is based, shall be stated in a concise summary form.’ The complaint must, therefore, not only give defendant notice of what plaintiffs’ claims are and the grounds upon which they rest, but the pleading must also formulate the issues by summarizing those facts essential to support the claim. Allegations asserting or relating to claims for punitive damages must contain specific averments of fact sufficient to support such damage as well as inform the defense of what to expect at trial. Punitive damage claims must be based upon conduct that is malicious, wanton, reckless or oppressive.”
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas Judge John T. McVay Jr. overruled the defendant’s preliminary objections on May 22, 2023.
“Upon consideration of the preliminary objections filed by defendant Satalio’s, Inc., it is hereby ordered and decreed that said preliminary objections are overruled,” McVay stated.
On June 13, 2023, the defendant provided an answer and new matter in the case, which served to deny the complaint’s substantive allegations and provide affirmative defenses on its own behalf.
“The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. To the extent discovery reveals, plaintiffs failed to mitigate any claimed damages. Satalio’s is entitled to a setoff of any amounts paid by a third party to or on behalf of plaintiffs, and of any payments from which plaintiffs benefited in mitigation of alleged damages. To the extent discovery reveals, the actions or inactions of others were the factual and/or superseding and/or intervening cause of any alleged damages claimed by plaintiffs. Any and all damages sustained by plaintiffs were the direct and legal cause of the negligence, carelessness and recklessness of plaintiffs. Upon information and belief, plaintiff Evans was publicly urinating off of the deck and onto the ground below when he and plaintiff Hlavac became engaged in a verbal altercation. Upon information and belief, the altercation became physical when plaintiff Hlavac pushed plaintiff Evans through the deck railing causing both of them to fall to the ground below. To the extent that any and all claims against Satalio’s are established, said claims are barred from recovery pursuant to the terms of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. In the alternative, any damages for which Satalio’s is held legally responsible should be diminished in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to plaintiffs,” the new matter stated.
“Plaintiffs assumed the risk incident to the alleged injuries of which they complain. Any injuries, damages, or losses sustained by plaintiffs were proximately caused or proximately contributed to by persons and/or entities other than Satalio’s. To the extent discovery reveals, plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. To the extent discovery reveals, plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of waiver, estoppel, laches and/or unclean hands. At all times relevant, the exterior of the premises, including the deck, were maintained in reasonably good repair. To the extent a dangerous condition existed on the exterior of the premises, including the deck (which is denied), such condition was not a result of any negligence of Satalio’s. To the extent a dangerous condition existed on the exterior of the premises, including the deck (which is denied), Satalio’s had no notice of such condition.”
The restaurant added that any damages plaintiff Evans is entitled to, “any and all damages were the direct and proximate result of the actions of plaintiff Hlavac.”
UPDATE
On Nov. 8 and Jan. 23, plaintiffs Evans and Hlavac, respectively, replied to the new matter and termed it as conclusions of law to which no official response was required – and additionally took issue with the restaurant’s portrayal of the subject incident and rejected the associated cross-claims.
Satalio’s followed up on Feb. 9, with a reply to plaintiff Hlavac’s new matter on its cross-claim.
“Plaintiff Hlavac pushed plaintiff Evans through the railing. The allegations contained in these paragraphs state conclusions of law to which no responses are required. To the extent responses are required, the allegations are denied,” the reply stated.
For two counts of negligence, the plaintiff is seeking damages, individually and collectively, in excess of $50,000.
The plaintiffs are represented by Michael P. O’Day of the Law Offices of Michael O’Day, in Pittsburgh.
The defendant is represented by Erica L. Laughlin and Lydia A. Gorba of Strassburger McKenna Gutnick & Gefsky, also in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-23-001902
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com