PITTSBURGH – A state court judge has overruled preliminary objections made by Starbucks in a case filed by a Pittsburgh doctor and her husband, after she allegedly suffered knee and head injuries in a scooter accident at a local branch of the coffee company.
Dr. Mylanda Massart and Mordechai Massart of Pittsburgh first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on May 1, 2020 versus Starbucks Corporation of Seattle.
Dr. Massart, a practicing physician at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center at Oakland, underwent minor surgery to address a remediable condition on her left foot. In order to keep weight off her left foot, she was required to use a knee scooter for ambulation, the lawsuit said.
She went to a Starbucks in Pittsburgh’s Oakland neighborhood on May 28, 2018, and used her scooter to go to the restroom. After using the facilities, her scooter became wedged between the elevated platform seating in the back of the store and a table placed by Starbucks for use by patrons in or near the hallway leading to the restroom, the lawsuit said.
Massart was thrown from her scooter, striking her chest on the handlebars and being propelled forward over them, hitting her head and incurring full impact to her left knee, the plaintiffs claim.
UPDATE
Starbucks filed preliminary objections in the matter on June 11, lodging four opposing charges to the litigation.
The company looked to strike allegations relating to violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, Paragraphs 5-23 and 29 for failure to conform to law or rule of court or inclusion of scandalous or impertinent matter, plus claims relating to the husband’s medical expenses.
“Plaintiffs have not asserted a cause of action for a violation of Title III of the ADA nor do they seek the only relief permitted under such a claim, injunctive relief. This is a negligence action for money damages and any references to the ADA in the complaint must be stricken,” the objections read, in part.
“A complainant must first file a timely complaint with the PHRA or the complainant is foreclosed from asserting those claims in the Court of Common Pleas. Here, there is no allegation of the filing of a PHRA complaint or a finding by the Commission that Starbucks violated the PHRA. Absent the filing of a complaint with the Commission, there can be no direct recourse to the Courts of Common Pleas. Thus, any references to the PHRA in this negligence case must be stricken.”
Additionally, the objections stated that the allegations set forth in paragraphs 5 through 23 of the complaint fail to set forth material facts upon which the negligence cause of action are based, and there is no basis under a loss of consortium claim for the plaintiff-husband to recover his wife’s medical expenses.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas Judge Alan D. Hertzberg overruled the preliminary objections on Aug. 13.
The plaintiffs alleged both negligence and loss of consortium against the defendant, and are seeking both damages in excess of $50,000 and a trial by jury.
The plaintiffs are represented by Kathleen A. Segmiller of Segmiller & Associates, in Pittsburgh.
The defendant is represented by Jennifer M. Swistak of Cipriani & Werner, also in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-20-005401
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com