MEDIA – Folcroft Swim Club has denied allegations of negligence and lax security levied by the parents of a 13-year-old child who drowned at the facility two years ago and subsequently filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the club.
Lola Ruff of Sharon Hill and Lyndell Westbrook of Philadelphia (as Co-Administrators of the Estate of K.R., minor, deceased, in her own right and on behalf of said decedent’s next-of-kin and heirs-at-law) initially filed suit in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas on Aug. 6 versus Folcroft Swim Club and Folcroft Swim Club, Inc. of Folcroft and John Does 1-2.
The suit alleged for a significant time prior to Aug. 21, 2019, defendants Swim Club and John Does 1-2 knew or should have known that its pool was likely to be accessed and was being accessed by minors unattended due to a defective perimeter, and that such access would cause a serious risk of death from drowning.
Prior to Aug. 21, 2019, defendant Swim Club and John Does 1-2’s measure to prevent minors from gaining access to the premises pool when closed and prevent drowning accidents of minors, was to install a fence around the premises’ pool and/or have proper security measures put into place.
However, the suit added that the fence was permitted to deteriorate and lose its efficiency for its intended purpose.
“According to the police report, on or about Aug. 21, 2019, minor decedent, K.R., and three additional minors, all proceeded to defendants Swim Club, John Doe 1 and John Doe 2, premises with the intention gain access to the pool. According to the police report, upon arrival at premises, the four minors were able to gain entry through a gate by maneuvering the space between the gate and fitting their bodies through. Upon information and belief there are a multitude of areas of crippled, dilapidated, broken, unkempt and/or otherwise defective fencing surrounding the perimeter of the pool, which would allow for easy access,” the suit said.
The plaintiff claimed that the defendants “knew or should have known that the property’s fence where the four minors were able to gain entry onto the premises, was in such a defective and unsecured condition that it allowed children to maneuver their bodies through to gain entry.”
“According to the Medical Examiner’s Report, all four minors began to jump into the premises’ pool and decedent K.R. jumped from the high dive board into the 12’ deep area of the pool, then one or more of the minors, jumped directly on top of decedent, K.R., which caused him to begin to sink to the bottom of the 12’ deep area of the pool. When the minors noticed that decedent K.R., was not moving and sinking to the bottom, began to run away and head to their respective homes,” the suit stated.
“According to the Medical Examiner’s Report, one or more of the minors, realizing what had happened, decided to call 911. According to the Police Report, Decedent, K.R., was recovered by authorities/EMS from the premises’ pool and pronounced dead after an unsuccessful resuscitative attempt effort. As a result of the negligent and carelessness conduct of the defendants, decedent K.R., came to his demise on August 21, 2019, at the age of 13.”
UPDATE
Folcroft Swim Club filed an answer to the complaint with new matter on Sept. 3, denying the plaintiffs’ allegations of negligence leading to K.R.’s tragic death and their case in its entirety.
“Plaintiffs fail to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted and may lack standing to bring claims on behalf of plaintiffs’ decedent. The applicable statute of limitations may have expired. Answering defendants caused no injuries or damage to plaintiff or plaintiffs’ decedent, and any injury or damage allegedly sustained by the plaintiff or plaintiffs’ decedent may have been caused by a party other than answering defendants and not within the control of answering defendants. Answering defendants did not commit any act or omission proximately causing injuries and/or damages to plaintiffs’ decedent,” the answer’s new matter stated, in part.
“Answering defendants owed no duty and breached no duty to the plaintiffs’ decedent and acted reasonably, properly, and in good faith at all times relevant hereto. Answering defendants were not negligent, careless, reckless or wanton at any time material hereto. Plaintiffs’ decedent was contributorily negligent and/or comparatively negligent; accordingly, his injuries and/or damages are limited or prohibited by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligent Act. Plaintiffs’ claims may be barred and/or limited by the application of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act.”
Among other defenses, the new matter added that the plaintiff cannot recover punitive damages because no conduct of the answering defendant rose to the level permitting a punitive award, and because an award of punitive damages would be contrary to the rights of the answering defendant under the U.S. Constitution and the Pennsylvania Constitution.
For counts of negligence, survival and wrongful death, the plaintiffs are seeking, jointly, severally and/or separately, damages in excess of $50,000, including punitive damages each, upon these counts.
The plaintiffs are represented by Michael F. Barrett, Joseph G. DeAngelo and Michael Mongeluzzi of Barrett DeAngelo, in West Chester.
The defendants are represented by Andrew J. Spaulding and Ashley S. Johnson of Fowler Hirtzel McNulty & Spaulding, in Philadelphia.
Delaware County Court of Common Pleas case CV-2021-006757
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com