Quantcast

Broken hip at Advance Auto Parts update: Store says parking lot's condition was landlord's responsibility

PENNSYLVANIA RECORD

Monday, December 23, 2024

Broken hip at Advance Auto Parts update: Store says parking lot's condition was landlord's responsibility

State Court
Advanceautoparts

PITTSBURGH – Advance Auto Parts argues responsibility for the injuries suffered by a Pittsburgh man who broke his hip because of a cement parking place indicator in its store lot belong to that of its landlord, and not itself.

Jeffrey Bruce of Pittsburgh first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on July 10 versus Adrian Associates, LP of Pittsburgh and Advance Auto Parts, of Raleigh, N.C.

“On the morning of Aug. 18, 2018, plaintiff was walking back to his vehicle after making a purchase of a turn signal bulb at Advance Auto Parts. Previously, he had parked his vehicle in a parking space which had a cement parking stop for each individual parking spot,” the suit said.

“While attempting to open his vehicle hood in the parking lot, he did not see the cement parking stop and tripped over it, falling into a depression in the parking lot. The cement parking stop was not distinguished by being painted and essentially existed in the same color component as the surface of the parking lot, which made the same unnoticeable and caused plaintiff to trip over it and severely injure himself.”

The plaintiff said the defendants were responsible for designing, maintaining and inspecting the parking lot so that it is safe for customers to use. As a result, the plaintiff says he suffered a hip fracture and was rejected for a liver replacement needed to treat an underlying condition.

UPDATE

The auto store and its counsel filed an answer to Bruce’s complaint, denying it was responsible for his injuries.

“Defendant admits that there is an Advance Auto Parts store located at 1347 Liberty West Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15226. Defendant was a tenant of the building in which this store was located and operated and maintained the store. Defendant denies that it was the owner of the building and/or any “real property” at/near where the store was located,” the answer read, in part.

“Defendant further denies that it owned, operated, managed, maintained and/or possessed the parking lot that was near this store. Defendant was solely the tenant of the building and denies that it was a tenant of the parking lot as the parking lot constitutes a ‘common area’ pursuant to the lease that governs defendant’s tenancy of the building. Defendant denies that it had any responsibility to maintain the parking lot and/or any other common area near the store.”

In new matter, Advance Auto Parts continued to disavow its responsibility for Bruce’s injuries.

“Plaintiff’s claims fail to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted, are barred and/or reduced by the failure to mitigate any alleged damages and are barred by plaintiff’s assumption of risk,” the answer stated.

“Any and all damages sustained by plaintiff, if any, were the direct result of the plaintiff’s contributory and/or comparative negligence. As a result, said contributory and/or comparative negligence either bars completely and/or reduces to the extent of such comparative and/or contributory negligence any recovery by plaintiff, said recovery being expressly denied.”

Furthermore, Advance Auto Parts levied a cross-claim against its co-defendant.

“To the extent that it may be determined that plaintiff suffered damages as alleged in plaintiff’s complaint, and to the extent that it is determined that those damages were caused in whole or in part by defendant, allegations which defendant specifically denies, such damages were caused solely by the negligence of Adrian Associates,” per the cross-claim.

“If, as a result of the matters alleged in plaintiff’s complaint against defendant, defendant is judicially deemed to be liable to plaintiff for any damages that plaintiff may have suffered, then defendant Adrian Associates is liable over to defendant by way of indemnification and/or contribution for all such damages that defendant may have to pay to plaintiff.”

For a count of negligence, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of $35,000, plus such other relief as the court deems fair and just and a trial by jury.

The plaintiff is represented by John A. Adamczyk of Adamczyk Law Office, in Pittsburgh.

The defendants are represented by Colby S. Bryson of Litchfield Cavo, also in Pittsburgh.

Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-20-007535

From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com

More News