Quantcast

PENNSYLVANIA RECORD

Sunday, November 24, 2024

Injured Family Dollar shopper update: Store chain denies liability for man's accident with crate in aisleway

State Court
Christopherdgee

Gee | Post & Schell

PITTSBURGH – Family Dollar denies liability in an action brought forward by a Pittsburgh man, who claimed that a box or crate placed in his pedestrian path caused him to fall and sustain serious injuries.

Charles Lyles of Pittsburgh first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Oct. 30 versus Family Dollar Stores of Pennsylvania, LLC of Chesapeake, Va. and Family Dollar Store No. 1982, of Pittsburgh.

Lyles averred he was shopping in the subject store on April 9, 2019, when the dangerous condition presented itself and the subject incident took place.

“This aforesaid dangerous condition consisted of a box/crate/tote and/or otherwise a dangerous trip hazard in a walkway and/or pedestrian pathway that created an unsafe, uneven condition upon the site and a neglect to have said situation fixed, repaired and/or otherwise properly remedied. As plaintiff was carefully and lawfully walked on the aforementioned area of the site, he encountered and/or came into contact with the aforesaid dangerous condition causing him to trip and fall and thereby sustain the injuries and damages complained of,” the suit said.

“Due to the negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness of defendant in causing, creating and/or failing to correct the aforesaid dangerous condition, plaintiff came into contact with said condition and thereby fell, thus sustaining the injuries and damages complained of.”

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant “caused and/or permitted the dangerous, hazardous and unsafe condition to exist and remain on the subject area of the site.”

“As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness of the defendant, Family Dollar, plaintiff sustained the following injuries and damages, some or all of which may be of a permanent nature: Severe pain and discomfort to the upper right extremity, including laceration and open dislocation of the fifth finger, severe re-injury to the upper right extremity and a second and third dislocation of the fifth finger, severe pain and discomfort to the head, severe injury to the head, including laceration to the forehead, severe pain and discomfort to the left shin, including swelling and edema, severe emotional distress and shock to his nerves or nervous system,” per the suit.

“As a result of his injuries, plaintiff has undergone and continues to undergo great pain and suffering and inconvenience, may have suffered a permanent disability and permanent impairment of his earning power and capacity and may have sustained a permanent diminution of the ability to enjoy life and life’s pleasures.”

Family Dollar filed preliminary objections on Nov. 20, seeking to strike allegations of recklessness (a cause for the award of punitive damages), due to their allegedly being insufficiently pled.

However, on Feb. 16, Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas Judge Arnold I. Klein denied Family Dollar’s preliminary objections.

UPDATE

On April 28, Family Dollar’s counsel filed an answer to the complaint which denied its allegations and accompanying new matter which provided affirmative defenses.

“Plaintiff’s complaint may be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiff’s complaint fails to set forth a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. The incident, injuries and/or damages alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff was not directly or proximately caused by Family Dollar,” the new matter stated, in part.

“The act(s) or omission(s), or breach of duty alleged were the result of other person, persons or entities over whom Family Dollar had no control, right to control, or responsibility thus and constitutes the proximate or an intervening superseding cause of the injuries and/or damages alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff, and as such Family Dollar is not liable. Plaintiff assumed the risk of injury through their actions or activities; therefore, plaintiff’s actions are barred. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by his contributory or comparative negligence. Plaintiff’s claims may be barred by immunity, estoppel, res judicata, release, and/or waiver.”

The store’s counsel argued that the plaintiff tripped over the alleged condition on his own accord despite ample warning to him.

For two counts of negligence, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of $35,000, plus a trial by jury.

The plaintiff is represented by David K. Houck of Ogg Murphy & Perkosky, in Pittsburgh.

The defendants are represented by Christopher D. Gee and Marc H. Perry of Post & Schell, also in Pittsburgh.

Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-20-011252

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

More News