PHILADELPHIA – A New Jersey elevator manufacturer argues that it was not responsible for injuries that a Philadelphia woman says she suffered when her skirt became caught in the escalator of a Macy’s mall store in Bucks County.
Christine Pembleton of Philadelphia initially filed suit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on Sept. 1, 2020 versus Macy’s Inc. of New York, N.Y., Macy’s Retail Holdings, Inc. of Langhorne, Schindler Elevator Corporation of Morristown, N.J. and John Does 1-3, also of Langhorne.
“On Oct. 3, 2018, plaintiff was shopping at Macy’s Oxford Valley Mall store located at 2300 Lincoln Highway in Langhorne, when suddenly and without warning, the defective and/or unsafe escalator she was a passenger on caught her skirt, entrapped and pulled her down, and repeatedly struck her over a period of several minutes during which time each defendant failed to stop, correct or remedy said hazardous and injurious condition, causing plaintiff serious and/or permanent injuries to her neck, head, back, right ankle and leg,” the suit stated.
“As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned incident, plaintiff suffered serious and/or permanent injuries including, but not limited to: Back contusion, concussion with associated headache, post-traumatic headache, post-traumatic vertigo, cervical spine ligaments sprain, severe damage to her nerves and nervous system, and other diverse ills and injuries.”
According to the plaintiff, the defendants owed a duty to the plaintiff that the escalator in question which they provided for its intended users was in a safe, non-hazardous condition at all times.
The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 9, 2020 and Schindler Elevator Corporation then filed a motion to dismiss the case the following week, on Oct. 16, 2020.
“Plaintiff alleges that Schindler designed and manufactured the subject escalator. Based on the foregoing allegations, plaintiff includes two products liability counts against Schindler: Count III (Strict Liability) and Count IV (Breach of Warranty). Plaintiff’s claims must fail, as Schindler did not design, manufacture, or supply the subject escalator,” the motion read.
“Rather, Otis Elevator Company manufactured the subject escalator. A photograph identifying Otis Elevator Company as the manufacturer of the subject escalator is attached hereto as Exhibit ‘B.’ Because Schindler did not design, manufacture, or supply the subject escalator, plaintiff cannot establish the threshold requirement to advance claims in products liability.”
Schindler Elevator Corporation argued that when seen as a motion for summary judgment, it should be granted since a plaintiff cannot sustain product liability claims against a defendant which did not design, manufacture or supply the subject escalator. Therefore, the company looks to dismiss the counts of strict liability and breach of warranty.
UPDATE
Schindler Elevator Corporation filed an answer to the complaint on Oct. 8, charging in its affirmative defenses that it “did not manufacture, sell, distribute, and/or install the subject escalator.”
“Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, limited, or reduced by virtue of plaintiff’s own contributory and/or comparative negligence pursuant to the provisions of 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 7102. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, limited, and/or reduced according to plaintiff’s assumption of the risk. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate her damages,” the defenses stated, in part.
“Answering defendant breached no alleged duty to plaintiff. The injuries and damages allegedly sustained by plaintiff were caused by an intervening cause and/or superseding causes and, therefore, plaintiff may not recover against answering defendant. Answering defendant denies that it proximately caused each and every item of injury and/or damages set forth in plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, pre-empted, precluded, limited and/or reduced in accordance with the statutes of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, ordinances of Bucks County, Pennsylvania, and/or the statutes and regulations of the federal government.”
The company additionally argued that the plaintiff’s claims are barred as the alleged condition was “open and obvious.”
For multiple counts of negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, the plaintiff is seeking damages, jointly and severally, in excess of $50,000, exclusive of interest and costs, plus a trial by jury.
The plaintiff is represented by Robert A. Huber of Huber & Palsir, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Andrew C. Goldstein and Robert William Stanko of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, also in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-05024
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 200802802
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com