ALLENTOWN – A New Jersey woman who suffered a broken elbow in the parking lot of a Lancaster County mountain retreat and alleged that the facility’s negligence in its maintenance and upkeep was responsible for the incident, has settled her claims with the retreat.
Trudy Juzwiak of Mays Landing, N.J. first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on July 31, 2020 versus Refreshing Mountain Camp, Inc., of Stevens.
“On Sept. 14, 2019, plaintiff, Trudy Juzwiak, and her family arrived at the recreational facility owned, operated, and maintained by defendant, Refreshing Mountain Camp, Inc. located at the address contained in the caption and parked in the parking area indicated by defendant’s signs,” per the lawsuit.
“As plaintiff exited her vehicle and walked on the gravel parking lot she was caused to slip and fall and suffering a fracture of her elbow and other injuries hereinafter set forth at length, due to the defective nature of the parking lot surface.”
The suit said that the accident was solely because of the negligence of the defendant, Refreshing Mountain Camp, Inc. in failure to properly provide a safe parking area for its patrons; failing to properly maintain the surface of the parking area indicated for its patrons; failing to properly maintain the surface of its parking area and causing the surface of its parking area to have differing compositions between firm and soft hazardous to the users the parking lot, in addition to other alleged components of negligence.
“By reason of the aforesaid negligence of defendant, Refreshing Mountain Camp, Inc., plaintiff suffered a right lateral epicondyle fracture, abrasions to her leg, and injuries to her right knee as well as bruises and contusion in and about the various parts of her body and a severe shock to her nerves and nervous system,” the suit stated.
“As a result of her injuries, plaintiff has in the past and will in the future suffer severe pain and suffering and agony. As a result of her injuries, plaintiff has been compelled to incur medical expenses to her great financial detriment and loss.”
The resort filed a motion to dismiss the suit on Sept. 16, 2020 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, tied to the amount of damages at issue.
“Here, there is no support for plaintiff’s assertion that she is entitled to damages in excess of $75,000. Plaintiff vaguely alleges different types of damages with no factual averments demonstrating such alleged damages are actually suffered and if so, in what amount. It contains no definitive value of the alleged damages independently or in combination. Moreover, at this point, there has been no demand, removal notices, stipulations or discovery evidence for defendant to refer to in order to agree this Court has jurisdiction over the matter,” the dismissal motion read, in part.
“Instead, plaintiff generally asserts they will exceed $75,000. However, as stated above, plaintiff is not entitled to the presumption that this averment is true. Nor can she allege future discovery will reveal amounts in excess of this requirement, as the judgment of the amount in controversy is that which plaintiff may be entitled to at the time the complaint is filed. Therefore, defendant contends that plaintiff is not entitled to recovery in an amount excess of $75,000. As such, her complaint should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
UPDATE
An order from U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Edward G. Smith and authored by Civil Deputy Clerk Shana Restucci dated July 15 explained that the case had been settled, though the terms were not disclosed.
“It having been reported that the parties have settled the above-captioned action, and pursuant to Rule 41.1(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of this Court, it is hereby ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice, pursuant to agreement of counsel without costs. The Court shall retain jurisdiction for a period of 90 days while the parties finalize the written settlement agreement,” the order stated.
The plaintiff was represented by Kenneth M. Rodgers of the Law Offices of Kenneth M. Rodgers, in Philadelphia.
The defendant was represented by Brian H. Leinhauser of The MacMain Law Group, in West Chester.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 5:20-cv-03737
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com