PITTSBURGH – A Western Pennsylvania woman has reiterated claims that she was injured during her postal rounds, when an unsecured multi-unit mailbox fell and struck her in the chest.
Tawnya L. Halladay of Aliquippa first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on May 8, 2023 versus JLB Retasa Murray, LLC (doing business as “Pearl Apartments”), JLB Retasa Investments, LLC, JLB Retasa Multi, LLC, JLB Retasa Multi Portfolio, LLC, JLB Retasa Multi SM, LLC and JLB Retasa Multi Two, LLC, all of Pittsburgh.
“At all times relevant to this matter, JLB Retasa defendants owned, possessed, maintained and/or controlled the real property and premises located at 318 Moon Clinton Road, Building C, Moon Township, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania 15180. As the owner, and possessor of the premises, having possession, care, custody or control over the premises, JLB Retasa defendants had a duty, or an implied duty, to maintain, inspect and/or repair the premises in a reasonable manner, so as to provide a reasonably safe environment for those persons lawfully on the premises,” the suit said.
“At all relevant times, JLB Retasa defendants acted by and through their agents, ostensible agents, servants, servants, employees, contractors, subcontractors and assignees. At all times relevant hereto, plaintiff was a business invitee lawfully on the premises delivering mail in the course and scope of her duties as a postal worker. At all times relevant and material hereto, there existed a dangerous, defective, hazardous and unsafe condition on the premises of JLB Retasa defendants, characterized by an unsecured multi-unit mailbox.
The suit added that JLB Retasa defendants “failed to take any steps to eliminate the hazard, reduce its danger to business invitees, or otherwise warn users, including plaintiff, of its dangerous, hazardous, unsafe and defective condition.”
“On May 13, 2021, at or around 9:30 a.m., plaintiff arrived on the premises to deliver mail. As plaintiff proceeded to try and unlock the multi-unit mailbox, which had been mounted at chest height to a wall, the unit began to fall out of the wall and hit plaintiff in the chest as it fell, throwing her down to the floor. Plaintiff sustained the following injuries, some of which are or may be permanent: Chest contusion, bruises, contusions and other injuries in or about nerves, muscles, bones, tendons, ligaments, tissues and vessels of the body, and nervousness, emotional tension, anxiety and depression,” the suit stated.
“As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and carelessness of JLB Retasa defendants, plaintiff suffered the following damages, some or all of which may be continuing: She has been, and will be required to expend large sums of money for medical attention, hospitalization, medical supplies, medical appliances, medicines and various other medical services, potentially not have the ability to enjoy various pleasures of life that were previously enjoyed and loss and impairment of general health, strength and vitality.”
The defendants provided an answer and new matter in the case on Sept. 1, 2023, which denied the plaintiff’s substantive allegations as conclusions of law to which no official response was required.
“Plaintiff’s claims may be barred and/or limited by the provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A. Section 7102. Any acts or omissions of answering defendants alleged to constitute negligence may not have been the substantial or factual causes of the subject incident and/or did not result in the injuries and/or losses alleged by plaintiff. Plaintiff’s claims may be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiff’s claims may be barred and/or limited by the failure to mitigate damages. Plaintiff’s claims may be due in whole or in part to an act or acts of commission or omission of persons, parties or entities other than answering defendants and over whom answering defendants had no control or right of control. Plaintiff may have assumed the risk of any injuries and/or damages alleged,” the defendants’ new matter said.
“Answering defendants may have had no notice, actual or constructive, of the alleged hazard or dangerous condition. Answering defendants may not have owed a duty of care to plaintiff. If answering defendants owed a duty of care to plaintiff, said duty may not have been breached or violated. Plaintiff’s claims may be barred and/or limited by the doctrine of release. Plaintiff’s claims may be barred and/or limited by the doctrine of res judicata. Plaintiff’s claims may be barred and/or limited by the doctrine of collateral estoppel.”
UPDATE
In a March 27 reply to the new matter, the plaintiff termed it as “legal conclusions to which no responses are required” and that “to the extent responses are required, [those paragraphs] are specifically denied and specific proof is demanded thereof.”
For a lone count of negligence, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of the jurisdictional limits of arbitration, together with court costs, interest and all other and further relief permitted by the Court.
The plaintiff is represented by Peter D. Friday, Nelson B. Gaugler and Ian Newman of Friday & Cox, in Pittsburgh.
The defendants are represented by Christopher J. Sichok of the Law Offices of Mezzanotte Hasson & Sichok, in Scranton.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-23-005957
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com