PITTSBURGH – A Pittsburgh woman says official entities from the City of Pittsburgh were not only negligent in their failure to repair a sidewalk, causing her to fall and become seriously injured, but that their defenses to her lawsuit are not adequate.
Jacqueline Harris-Waters first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Oct. 7 versus The Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburgh, the City of Pittsburgh and Corcoran Jennison Management, LLC, of Boston.
Harris-Waters resided in the Oak Hill Apartments community in Pittsburgh.
“On March 22, 2019, at approximately 6 p.m., plaintiff Jacqueline Harris-Waters exited her residence at 246 Oak Hill Drive, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to retrieve her mail from a common mailbox located adjacent to the sidewalk along the eastern side of Oak Hill Drive,” the suit said.
“As she was carefully and prudently walking on the aforesaid sidewalk leading towards the mailbox, she was caused to violently fall due to dangerous conditions created by an uneven, defective and eroded surface of the concrete sidewalk. The aforesaid defective and hazardous conditions of the sidewalk were located on the sidewalk in front of the property at 280 Oak Hill Drive, Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania 15213.”
The plaintiff argued the conditions caused by the defendants’ negligence were sufficient enough to cause her injuries.
“The aforesaid defective conditions of the sidewalk created a reasonably foreseeable risk that a pedestrian while walking would be caused to fall and sustain injury, and defendant City of Pittsburgh had actual notice or could reasonably have been charged with notice under the circumstances of the likelihood of a dangerous condition existing at the time of the accident, with such notice available to defendant at any time sufficiently prior to the accident to have taken measures to protect against the same,” according to the suit.
As a result of the fall, Harris-Waters suffered numerous injuries, including severe sprains and strains of the left knee, left ankle and left foot, left knee contusion, left knee pain, patellofemoral syndrome of the left lower extremity, bone bruise of the left knee, scarring of the left lower extremity, possible aggravation of pre-existing disease processes and/or health deficiencies, nervousness, tension and emotional anxiety.
The City provided an answer to the complaint along with new matter on March 11, denying all allegations and asserting that the City was entitled to qualified immunity under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, among other defenses.
“The City believes and therefore avers that plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. The City pleads the public duty doctrine as an affirmative defense. The City did not fail in any duty or obligation that might have been owed to the plaintiff. The City raises waiver and release as an affirmative defense,” the new matter stated.
“The City believes and avers that plaintiff’s right to recover in this action may be governed, diminished and/or barred by her contributory and/or comparative negligence. Therefore, the City claims all benefits of the provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, as set forth at 42 Pa.C.S. Section 7102. Any damages to which plaintiff may otherwise be entitled, which entitled has been expressly denied, must be reduced and/or barred by her own comparative negligence as aforesaid.”
The City believes that the plaintiff’s injuries were caused by her own recklessness, carelessness and negligence generally, and that her claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations, laches, estoppel, waiver, collateral estoppel and/or res judicata.
Furthermore, the City asserted cross-claims against its co-defendants, charging them with sole liability for the events at issue.
UPDATE
Attorneys for the Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburgh and Corcoran Jennison Management, LLC provided their own answer to the complaint on April 29.
The instant defendants contended that they were not responsible for creating the conditions that led to the plaintiff’s injuries, and furthermore, that the plaintiff was both a trespasser and the subject of a 2018 legal action to vacate the premises.
“The plaintiff was negligent, reckless and careless in general and in the following particulars: In failing to observe all obvious and existing conditions in the area of her alleged accident; In failing to choose a safe walkway; In wearing inappropriate and/or dangerous footwear; In failing to read any and all warnings or informational signs in the area; In failing to use appropriate walkways, even though said walkways were available; and in failing to take proper precautions to determine the safety and appropriateness of her path,” the answer said, in part.
“Any and all of the plaintiff’s alleged injuries and/or damages, the existence of which are and have been denied may not be recovered by the plaintiff, due to the plaintiff’s assumption of a known risk of harm. The plaintiff was a trespasser on the defendants’ property at all times relevant to her alleged fall. The plaintiff’s claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations, which requires that lawsuits seeking injuries or damages for personal injury be filed within two years following the date of incident.”
The instant defendants added that assumption of the risk, collateral estoppel, res judicata, release or immunity from suit may also preclude the substantive charges of the suit.
On May 11, counsel for the plaintiff responded to the answer and new matter, believing it be containing legal conclusions to which no response was necessary.
“To the extent that a response is required, it is denied that any and all of plaintiff’s alleged injuries and/or damages were caused solely by the plaintiff’s own negligence, carless and reckless conduct, such that any amounts which the plaintiff has claimed are barred, modified and/or reduced by the provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Law, and strict proof thereof is required at time of trial,” the plaintiff’s response stated, in part.
“To the extent that a response is required, it is denied that plaintiff was negligent, reckless and careless in general and in the following particulars: In failing to observe all obvious and existing conditions in the area of her alleged accident; In failing to choose a safe walkway; In wearing inappropriate and/or dangerous footwear; In failing to read any and all warnings or informational signs in the area; In failing to use appropriate walkways, even though said walkways were available; and in failing to take proper precautions to determine the safety and appropriateness of her path.”
For multiple counts of negligence, the plaintiff is seeking damages, jointly and severally, in excess of the arbitration limits of Allegheny County, plus a trial by jury.
The plaintiff is represented by James Villanova of Villanova Law Office, in Pittsburgh.
The defendants are represented by Assistant City Solicitor Lawrence H. Baumiller plus Jeffrey M. Olszewski and Rosemary A. Marchesani of Cipriani & Werner, both also in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-20-013154
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com