PHILADELPHIA – A man shopping inside a Lowe’s Home Improvement store in New Jersey who alleged he was seriously injured when he was hit with a box of flooring material, has settled and ended his litigation with the retailer.
Harold Goodman of Phoenixville initially filed suit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on June 8, 2020 versus Lowe’s Home Improvement of Millville, N.J. and Lowe’s Home Centers of Wilkesboro, N.C.
(The case was later removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on July 17.)
“On July 31, 2018, plaintiff was a business invitee inside the Lowe’s Home Improvement store located at 113 Bluebird Lane, Millville, N.J., when a box containing flooring material opened, causing the flooring material to fall onto plaintiff resulting in serious and permanent injuries,” the suit stated.
Goodman alleged the Lowe’s store failed to completely and thoroughly inspect the property, failed to promptly and carefully post warning signs, cones and/or post notices to warn individuals of the dangerous condition, plus allowing the said hazardous and dangerous condition to exist once created, among others.
“As the direct and proximate result of defendants’ negligence, plaintiff sustained severe and multiple injuries, both internal and external, to and about his body, and extremities and/or the aggravation of pre-existing conditions thereto, if any, with injury to his bones, joints, nerves and nervous system, including, but not limited to: Back, shoulder, neck, arms, internal injuries of an unknown nature, severe aches, pains, mental anxiety and anguish, severe shock to his entire nervous system, exacerbation of all known and unknown pre-existing medical conditions, if any, and other injuries that will represent a permanent and substantial impairment of plaintiff’s bodily functioning that substantially impairs plaintiff’s ability to perform his daily life activities, and the full extent of which is not yet known,” the lawsuit said.
Lowe’s filed an answer to Goodman’s suit on July 30, 2020, denying the plaintiff’s allegations as conclusions of law to which no official response was required and asserting 19 separate affirmative defenses. Among them were the following:
• Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted;
• Plaintiff’s complaint is barred by the applicable statute of limitations;
• Plaintiff’s action is barred and/or limited by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act;
• Plaintiff’s claims are barred and/or limited by the assumption of the risk;
• Answering defendant challenges the imposition of delay damages on constitutional and/or such other grounds as may exist;
• Plaintiff has failed to mitigate his damages.
UPDATE
Counsel for the parties mutually filed a stipulation of dismissal on June 3.
“The matter in difference in the above-entitled action having been amicably adjusted by and between the parties, it is hereby stipulated and agreed that the same be and is hereby dismissed without costs against either party with prejudice,” the stipulation read.
Prior to settlement and for a lone count of negligence, the plaintiff was seeking damages in excess of $50,000, plus interest and costs of suit.
The plaintiff was represented by Sean M. Fulmer of Schatz & Steinberg, in Philadelphia.
The defendants were represented by David S. Cohen and Capri R. Stevens of Mintzer Sarowitz Zeris Ledva & Meyers, also in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-03515
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 200600384
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com