PITTSBURGH – Business and hospitality company defendants are denying liability for the alleged assault of a Wynnewood woman at their hotel two years ago, one which caused her to have sustained severe skull and neurocognitive injuries.
Anne Garnett and Kevin Dougherty of Wynnewood first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Oct. 5 versus Hampton Inn Pittsburgh and Hampton Inn Pittsburgh University/Medical Center of Pittsburgh, Hampton by Hilton and Hilton Worldwide, Inc. of McLean, Va., Apple Nine Pennsylvania Business Trust and Apple Nine Hospitality Management, Inc. of Richmond, Va., John Does 1-3 and Doe Companies 1-3.
“On Nov. 10, 2018, plaintiff, Anne Garnett, while a business invitee at defendants, Hampton, Inn, Hilton, Worldwide, Apple, Nine and Doe Company (1-3), property, was physically assaulted and attacked by an unknown assailant, who upon information and belief, was an employees of defendants, Hampton, Inn, Hilton, Worldwide, Apple, Nine and Doe Company (1-3), as she entered her hotel room, causing plaintiff to suffer those serious and permanent,” the suit stated.
Among other negligence-based arguments, Garnett alleges the defendants failed to have policies and procedures in place to prevent violent physical altercations, failed to have policies and procedures in place to prevent patrons from being physically assaulted; failed to provide proper security in the events leading up to plaintiff’s accident and failed to have an adequate number of security personnel on the property.
As a result, Garnett was required to remain in-patient from Nov. 10, 2018 through Nov. 12, 2018 at UPMC, having sustained a fractured skull, swelling of her brain, abrasions and bruises to her face, severe pain and injury to her head, severe pain and injury to her face, severe pain and injury to her brain, a severed olfactory nerve, severe deficits in smell and taste, severe damage to her vestibular system; severe deficits, severe deficits in memory, specifically regarding word retrieval; a bruise to the interior wall of her vertebral artery, brain bleeds and other injuries.
UPDATE
Defendants Apple Nine Pennsylvania Business Trust and Apple Nine Hospitality Management, Inc. filed an answer, new matter and cross-claim on Oct. 29. First, Apple Nine denied the plaintiff’s contentions in their entirety, before listing its new matter.
“Plaintiffs’ claims are barred and/or limited by the provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, and are or may be barred or limited by application of the terms and provisions of Pennsylvania’s Fair Share Act. This Court has not acquired personal jurisdiction over the person of answering defendants, thus demanding dismissal of the case. By plaintiffs’ actions at the time, date, and place stated in the complaint, plaintiffs assumed the risk of any and all injuries and/or damages which they allege to have suffered,” the defendants’ answer said, in part.
“Plaintiffs’ claims are barred and/or limited by the applicable Statute of Limitations. The complaint, or portions thereof, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The damages alleged by plaintiff in the complaint did not result from acts or omissions of answering defendants, but from acts and/or omissions of third parties over whom answering defendants had no control. The negligent or reckless acts or omissions of other persons or entities may constitute a superseding and/or intervening cause of the injuries claimed.”
Additionally, Apple Nine argued the action should be dismissed for failure to join any and all necessary and indispensable parties and that the plaintiffs’ claims are barred or substantially reduced because plaintiff failed to act reasonably or timely to mitigate damages, among other defenses.
Furthermore, the Apple Nine defendants asserted a cross-claim against the John Doe defendants, arguing their actions were the proximate cause of Garnett’s injuries.
“Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure Section 1031.1, it is averred that John Doe(s) 1-3 are solely liable on the underlying cause of action, or liable to or with cross claimant(s) on any cause of action arising out of the transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences upon which the underlying cause of action is based,” per defense counsel.
“Answering defendants’ cross-claim for contribution is or may be barred or limited by application of the terms and provisions of the Pennsylvania’s Fair Share Act, 42 Pa.C.S. Section 7102.”
For multiple counts of negligence, assault and battery and loss of consortium, the plaintiffs are each seeking damages, jointly and severally, separate sums in excess of $50,000, including punitive damages and brings this action to recover same, plus a trial by jury.
The plaintiffs are represented by Robert N. Braker of Saltz Mongeluzzi & Bendesky, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Greg A. Ray of Bunker & Ray, also in Philadelphia.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-20-010546
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com