ALLENTOWN – A Lancaster County mountain retreat asserts that a New Jersey woman who sued it for negligence after suffering a broken elbow in its parking lot did not show the precise amount in damages she seeks, and therefore, her complaint must be dismissed.
Trudy Juzwiak of Mays Landing, N.J. first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on July 31 versus Refreshing Mountain Camp, Inc., of Stevens.
“On Sept. 14, 2019, plaintiff, Trudy Juzwiak, and her family arrived at the recreational facility owned, operated, and maintained by defendant, Refreshing Mountain Camp, Inc. located at the address contained in the caption and parked in the parking area indicated by defendant’s signs,” per the lawsuit.
“As plaintiff exited her vehicle and walked on the gravel parking lot she was caused to slip and fall and suffering a fracture of her elbow and other injuries hereinafter set forth at length, due to the defective nature of the parking lot surface.”
The suit said that the accident was solely because of the negligence of the defendant, Refreshing Mountain Camp, Inc. in failure to properly provide a safe parking area for its patrons; failing to properly maintain the surface of the parking area indicated for its patrons; failing to properly maintain the surface of its parking area and causing the surface of its parking area to have differing compositions between firm and soft hazardous to the users the parking lot, in addition to other alleged components of negligence.
“By reason of the aforesaid negligence of defendant, Refreshing Mountain Camp, Inc., plaintiff suffered a right lateral epicondyle fracture, abrasions to her leg, and injuries to her right knee as well as bruises and contusion in and about the various parts of her body and a severe shock to her nerves and nervous system,” the suit stated.
“As a result of her injuries, plaintiff has in the past and will in the future suffer severe pain and suffering and agony. As a result of her injuries, plaintiff has been compelled to incur medical expenses to her great financial detriment and loss.”
UPDATE
The resort filed a motion to dismiss the suit on Sept. 16 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, tied to the amount of damages at issue.
“Here, there is no support for plaintiff’s assertion that she is entitled to damages in excess of $75,000. Plaintiff vaguely alleges different types of damages with no factual averments demonstrating such alleged damages are actually suffered and if so, in what amount. It contains no definitive value of the alleged damages independently or in combination. Moreover, at this point, there has been no demand, removal notices, stipulations or discovery evidence for defendant to refer to in order to agree this Court has jurisdiction over the matter,” the dismissal motion read, in part.
“Instead, plaintiff generally asserts they will exceed $75,000. However, as stated above, plaintiff is not entitled to the presumption that this averment is true. Nor can she allege future discovery will reveal amounts in excess of this requirement, as the judgment of the amount in controversy is that which plaintiff may be entitled to at the time the complaint is filed. Therefore, defendant contends that plaintiff is not entitled to recovery in an amount excess of $75,000. As such, her complaint should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
The plaintiff is represented by Kenneth M. Rodgers of the Law Offices of Kenneth M. Rodgers, in Philadelphia.
The defendant is represented by Brian H. Leinhauser and Samantha A. Ryan of The MacMain Law Group, in West Chester.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 5:20-cv-03737
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com