PITTSBURGH – Petland has hit back at the claims of a Coraopolis couple who sued it after the wife fell down on her way to play with a dog in one of its Pittsburgh stores, saying her actions constitute contributory negligence.
Janeen and Mario Gismondo first filed a complaint on Feb. 13 in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas against D.A.W. Pets LLC, (doing business as “Petland”), alleging the pet store negligently maintained its premises in an unsafe condition.
According to the complaint, on March 18, 2017, plaintiff Janeen Gismondo was a business invitee at defendant’s Petland store on Park Manor Boulevard in Pittsburgh when her shoes became caught in the wiring of a fence, causing her to fall backwards onto her right side. She claimed she was on her way to play with a Wheaton Terrier when it happened.
Gismondo alleged that she sustained a radial head fracture of wrist, dislocated thumb and right carpal tunnel syndrome, while her spouse Mario Gismondo reports suffering loss of consortium, services and society of his wife.
The plaintiffs hold Petland responsible because the defendant allegedly failed to include a gate or opening in the defective fence, and negligently encouraged plaintiff to enter the fenced area knowing that stepping over it presented an unreasonable risk of harm.
The plaintiffs requested a trial by jury and seek judgment against defendant in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits of the court, with costs, interest and other relief as permitted by the court.
Through its counsel, Petland filed a response on May 16, charging that Gismondo caused her own injuries when she disregarded posted signage for customers to stay out of the fenced-in exercise area and attempted to climb the fence of her own accord – thus being contributorily negligent.
“Defendant avers that the plaintiff attempted to climb over a fence wearing footwear which made it patently unsafe to do so. Defendant avers that the plaintiff ignored defendant’s employees’ directive not to climb over the fenced-in area surrounding the exercise area,” Petland said in its reply motion.
On June 26, the plaintiffs responded to Petland and labeled its reply statements as nothing more than conclusions of law, to which no response was required. The case remains pending.
The plaintiffs are represented by G. Christopher Apessos of Friday & Cox, in Pittsburgh
The defendant is represented by Jerry S. Eisenberg in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-19-001988
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com