PHILADELPHIA – Amazon answered litigation from a Florida woman who alleged that while on the job, she suffered severe shoulder, knee and back injuries at an Amazon warehouse, citing a lack of basis in her negligence allegations and bringing cross-claims against its fellow defendants.
Greta Roubert of Orlando, Fla. first filed suit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on June 1 versus Amazon of Seattle, Wash., Gilbane Building Company of Providence, R.I., Equity Industrial Partners of Needham, Mass. and Kellermeyers Bergenson Services, LLC, of Oceanside, Calif.
(The case was later removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on May 12.)
“On Oct. 2, 2020, plaintiff Greta Roubert was an employee of an independent contractor invited upon the premises of the defendants when she slipped, tripped, stumbled and fell as a result of a defective and dangerous condition on the property in the form of a cut-off lag bolt left haphazardly and inconspicuously on defendants’ walking surface which caused plaintiff to suffer serious and permanent injuries,” the suit said.
“Defendants knew and/or should have known of this dangerous and defective condition in light of its location and legal duty owed to plaintiff. As a result of the fall, plaintiff sustained traumatic injuries to her shoulder, knee and back, which have resulted in surgery to the shoulder and likely has permanently disabled plaintiff.”
The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were collectively negligent in failing to maintain the property in a safe condition, failing to remedy the condition in question and failing to warn visitors to the property of the condition, in addition to other negligent failures.
On July 19 and July 28, respectively, Amazon and Gilbane Building Company separately filed motions to dismiss the complaint, citing boilerplate language and catch-all allegations of negligence.
“Paragraph 10 (u) in plaintiff’s complaint summarily alleges an overly broad, general, boilerplate, ambiguous, catch-all, and prejudicial claim of negligence and carelessness against Amazon. Specifically, plaintiff 10 (u) alleges Amazon was ‘being otherwise negligent and careless. This is an improper and legally insufficient catch-all allegation. Plaintiff fails to plead any facts or details supporting this catch-all allegation,” Amazon’s dismissal motion stated, in part.
“Without such facts and details, Amazon cannot be on notice of its purported ‘otherwise negligent and careless’ behavior and prepare its defenses to the same. Ultimately, such an allegation would force Amazon to prepare defenses to a limitless amount of possible negligence claims and theories. As Paragraph 10 (u) is not facially plausible and is wholly unsupportable, this Court must dismiss it with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).”
Gilbane offered similar arguments in its own motion to dismiss.
“Plaintiff’s complaint does not plead allegations of negligence against defendant Gilbane. As pleaded, plaintiff has only alleged that she is entitled to relief from defendant Gilbane without having alleged facts to show she is entitled to relief. The complaint is devoid of allegations against Gilbane for failure to conform to any applicable standard required by law in violation of Pennsylvania’s fact pleading requirements. Therefore, plaintiff’s complaint against Gilbane must be dismissed,” the company’s motion said.
“[Alternatively], if plaintiff is afforded the ability to amend the pleadings as against this defendant, defendant Gilbane requests that this Court dismiss with prejudice this subparagraph of plaintiff’s complaint, as it does not comply with state or federal pleading requirements and is too indefinite to apprise defendant of the nature of the allegedly tortious conduct at issue.”
In response, the plaintiff filed an amended version of the complaint on July 30.
UPDATE
Amazon answered the amended complaint on Sept. 12, denying the litigation’s allegations and asserting both 18 affirmative defenses and cross-claims against all of its co-defendants.
“Amazon denies all allegations in plaintiff’s amended complaint not specifically admitted herein. Plaintiff’s claims are barred due to her failure to state a claim against Amazon upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff failed to mitigate or otherwise act to lessen or reduce her damages alleged in the amended complaint. If plaintiff suffered the injuries and damages alleged in the amended complaint, which are denied, those injuries and damages resulted in whole or in part from her decision to confront a known risk and recovery herein is barred or diminished in accordance with the doctrine of assumption of the risk,” the defenses read, in part.
“If the plaintiff suffered the injuries and damages alleged herein, which is denied, those injuries and damages were the result of the actions or inactions of third parties over whom Amazon had no control and for whose conduct it is not responsible. If plaintiff suffered the injuries and damages alleged in her amended complaint, which is denied, those injuries and damages were caused in whole or in part by the negligence of the plaintiff and recovery herein is barred and/or diminished in accordance with the provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 7102. Amazon did not owe plaintiff any duty of care. Amazon did not breach any duty of care owed to plaintiff.”
Cross-claims were further asserted against all of Amazon’s co-defendants.
“The accident referenced in plaintiff’s amended complaint was caused solely by the negligence and/or carelessness of defendants Gilbane Building Company, Equity Industrial Partners and Kellermeyers Bergenson Services, LLC and was due in no manner whatsoever to any act or failure to act on the part of Amazon,” the cross-claim said.
“The defendants Gilbane Building Company, Equity Industrial Partners and Kellermeyers Bergenson Services, LLC are alone and solely liable to plaintiff. If any liability is judicially determined against Amazon, with all such liability being specifically denied, then it is averred that defendants, Gilbane Building Company, Equity Industrial Partners and Kellermeyers Bergenson Services, LLC are liable over to Amazon by way of indemnification or contribution and/or are jointly and severally liable with Amazon.”
For multiple counts of negligence, the plaintiff is seeking damages, individually, jointly and severally, in excess of $50,000, plus costs, attorney’s fees and such other relief as this Honorable Court may deem just and appropriate.
The plaintiff is represented by David B. Rodden of Rodden & Rodden, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Salvatore A. Clemente of Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, plus Christina Capobianco and Chimdi Nwosu Ginsburg Tuffs of Goldberg Segalla, all also in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:21-cv-03091
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 210502701
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com