MEDIA – A Drexel Hill woman has reiterated that Upper Darby Township failed to ensure that a local shopping plaza included a designated pedestrian crosswalk, which resulted in her being severely injured in a pedestrian-motor vehicle accident.
Debra DeAngelis and Spero Pappas of Drexel Hill first filed suit in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas on Dec. 5, 2023 versus Upper Darby Township.
“The Pilgrim Gardens shopping center is a shopping center located at 4911 Township Line Road, Drexel Hill, Upper Darby Township, Pennsylvania, with Pontiac Road, as a roadway that gives access to the shopping center. An accurate depiction of the location of the Pilgrim Gardens shopping center shows Township Line Road at the bottom, with a yellow line on the roadway and the curving road through the shopping center as Pontiac Road. Defendant Upper Darby owns and maintains Pontiac Road, the roadway that separates the parking lot depicted in the center above from the strip of stores depicted along the top of the photograph and curving down the right-side of the photograph,” the suit stated.
“Pontiac Road is a one-way street at this location, with all traffic forced to travel from the bottom right of the photograph, along the roadway towards the top left of the photograph. On Aug. 23, 2022, plaintiff Debra DeAngelis was a patron of one of the stores located on Pontiac Road in Pilgrim Gardens, when Ms. DeAngelis exited the store, and attempted to cross Pontiac Road to gain access to the parking lot, where her vehicle was parked. At the same time, a vehicle exiting the parking lot and turning left onto Pontiac Road struck Ms. DeAngelis, resulting in injuries, including complex fractures to both legs, requiring surgery and extensive recovery. The vehicle tort-feasor has tendered their policy limits.”
The suit continued that the approximate location of the accident is depicted in the photograph…above, with a yellow dot in the top-right half portion of the photograph.
“There exists a lone marked/designated crosswalk across Pontiac Road from the stores to the parking lot further along Pontiac Road out front of the Ross Store, depicted in the top left portion of the photograph…above, but nowhere near the parking area closer to the shops depicted in the [other] photographs. There exists no marked/designated crosswalks for any of the stores along the right hand portion of Pontiac Road. The parking area is separated from Pontiac Road by the grassy area depicted above,” the suit said.
“The lone marked/designated crosswalk area at the Ross Store has an accompanying paved portion through the grassy separating area, affording access for handicap designated parking spots in the parking area near the Ross Store. The remaining parking area has no designated access across the grassy area for pedestrians, with said access only coming through the vehicle and entrance locations, such as those depicted in the [other] photographs.”
In a Feb. 15 answer to the complaint, Upper Darby Township admitted only that Pontiac Road was a one-way road under its authority, but disagreed with the complaint’s other assertions.
“It is admitted that there is one crosswalk across Pontiac Road in the general area of the accident that is in front of the Ross department store. It is denied, and strict proof demanded, that this is ‘nowhere near’ the parking area for the shops in question. It is denied, and strict proof demanded, that no designated crosswalks exist for the stores in question on Pontiac Road,” according to the defense’s answer.
“To the contrary, there is a designated crosswalk in front of the Ross department store. It is denied that any other crosswalk is required. It is admitted only that the designated crosswalk in front of the Ross department store at the shopping center in question has a corresponding curb ramp leading into the parking lot on the other side of Pontiac Road.”
The answer also provided new matter on the defendants’ behalf.
“Plaintiff’s complaint fails to set forth a claim against answering defendant upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff assumed the risk of harm by her own conduct. Any injuries or damages sustained by plaintiff were a direct and proximate result of plaintiff’s conduct. Answering defendant had no notice of a dangerous and/or hazardous condition in the area in question that allegedly caused plaintiff’s purported injuries. Answering defendant was not negligent, careless and/or reckless at any time material hereto. Any injuries or damages to the plaintiff was caused by third-parties over whom answering defendant has no authority or control. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrines of assumption of the risk, laches, release, res judicata, statute of limitations and waiver. Plaintiff’s action is barred and/or limited by the provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. Plaintiff was comparatively negligent to a degree greater than the alleged causal negligence of answering defendant, the existence of negligence on the part of answering defendant being expressly denied,” per the new matter.
“Plaintiff suffered no injury or damages as a result of any act or omission by answering defendant. Answering defendant owed no duty to plaintiff under any ordinance, statute and/or common law. At all times material hereto, answering defendant’s actions were proper and reasonable under the circumstances. Plaintiff may have failed to mitigate damages. Answering defendant are not responsible to plaintiff under any theory of liability. Plaintiff has not sustained any injuries cognizable under Pennsylvania law as a consequence of answering defendant’s alleged actions. No dangerous or defective condition existed at the location of the alleged accident. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations, and the Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act. Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action that falls within any of the exceptions to the immunity granted to answering defendant under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act. Plaintiff has not set forth a sufficient claim for damages under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act.”
UPDATE
In a March 26 reply to the new matter, the subject plaintiff contended that the Township’s answers were mostly “conclusions of law to which no response is required.”
Specifically, it was denied that the plaintiff was comparatively negligent in causing her own injuries, denied that she assumed the risk of causing her own injuries, denied that she had no notice of the dangerous or hazardous conditions in the area in question – however, it was admitted that a third-party had responsibility in the accident.
“It is admitted that a third-party was involved in causing the plaintiff’s injuries. It is denied that the sole cause was the fault of the third-party and that the answering defendant is contributorily negligent causing injuries to the plaintiff,” the reply stated.
For counts of negligence and loss of consortium, the plaintiffs are seeking damages in excess of $50,000, plus costs of suit and interest allowable by law.
The plaintiffs are represented by Michael LaRosa of LaRosa Law Firm, in Havertown.
The defendant is represented by Paola Kaczynski of William J. Ferren & Associates, in Hartford, Conn.
Delaware County Court of Common Pleas case CV-2023-010402
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com