PITTSBURGH – A Western Pennsylvania management company has been dismissed from the lawsuit of a tenant who had sued it for negligence, connected to their fall over a pair of retaining walls in their apartment parking lot.
Timothy Stroupe first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Jan. 11 versus LeDonne Associates Limited Partnership and P.D. & E Associates, Inc., both of Allison Park.
The suit said the plaintiff was a tenant of defendant at the premises and was entitled to utilize the parking lot. Two of the parking spaces located on the parking lot were held in place by a stone retaining wall. The retaining wall did not have a hand railing or guard despite having two iron pipes on the east side of the retaining wall curb and a single iron pipe in the landscape shrubbery beyond the end of the retaining wall.
The suit added that the lack of a guard surrounding the elevated portion of the parking lot posed a dangerous condition to lessees and other invitees at the property. Furthermore, the parking lot was said to not have any light posts and was only lit by a streetlight, and as such, it was difficult for those who accessed the premises to appreciate the dangers described above.
“On Jan. 24, 2020, at approximately 11:15 pm, Stroupe was exiting his car which was parked at the above-described parking lot. As he was carefully and lawfully traversing the aforesaid area, he was caused to fall over the upper retaining wall at the southeast corner of the parking lot, and then over the lower retaining wall, and ultimately landed onto the concrete driveway,” the suit stated.
“This incident was a result of the above-described dangerous condition and defect of the parking lot. On Jan. 24, 2020, both LeDonne Associates and P.D. & E Associates had actual knowledge or could reasonably be charged with notice of the dangerous condition at a sufficient time before the incident to have taken measure to protect against the defect and unsafe condition. The defect and unsafe condition of the premises created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the type of injury that Timothy Stroupe sustained.”
The plaintiff continued that the defendants’ negligence in failing to light the parking lot and provide both a guard surrounding the upper portion of the parking lot and hand rails along both the upper and lower retaining walls caused his various injuries.
“As the sole, direct, legal, and proximate result of the negligence of the defendant, as aforesaid, the plaintiff, Timothy Stroupe, has suffered the following injuries: Broken nose, concussion; stitches, scars, a chipped tooth and other injuries, the full extent of which are unknown,” per the suit.
Counsel for LeDonne Associates Limited Partnership filed an answer plus new matter in the case on March 10, which denied the plaintiff’s version of events and countered that he was at fault for the serious injuries he suffered in the fall.
“If plaintiff has been injured and damaged as alleged, then his comparative negligence and/or voluntary assumption of the risk bars or greatly reduces any amount which plaintiff might be otherwise entitled to recover,” the answer read, in part.
“Plaintiff was comparatively negligent in that he was careless regarding his own safety, generally and in the following particulars: In failing to be attentive, failing to select an unobstructed path of travel, failing to discover an obvious hazard in his direction of travel or in ignoring same, failing to maintain, purchase and/or wear shoes in a proper condition, failing to maintain a proper footing, failing to walk properly, failing to use due care and caution in walking and failing to keep a proper lookout while walking.”
The defendant counter-alleged that the plaintiff’s fall and any and all of his alleged injuries and damages were not caused by any alleged defect on its premises, but rather, were caused by the plaintiff’s own conduct as set forth in the foregoing paragraphs.
Meanwhile, the plaintiff filed a response on March 25, reasserting his claims.
“Defendant’s new matter contains legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments contained are denied, with strict proof being demanded at trial,” the response stated.
UPDATE
Plaintiff counsel filed a praecipe on July 6 to discontinue P.D. & E Associates, Inc. from the case without prejudice, meaning it remains possible for them to later be re-added as a defendant.
“Kindly discontinue the claims against P.D. & E Associates, Inc. only, without prejudice. This discontinuance is made with the consent of all parties,” the praecipe stated.
For counts of negligence and negligence per se, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of the applicable arbitration limits, exclusive of interest and costs, plus a trial by jury.
The plaintiff is represented by George M. Kontos and Christopher C. Inman of Kontos Mengine Killion & Hassen, in Pittsburgh.
The defendants are represented by Sharon L. Bliss of the Law Office of Kelley A. Morrone in Wexford, plus Jeffrey D. Ries of the Law Firm of Jeffrey Dallas Ries, in North Huntingdon.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-21-000336
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com