Quantcast

Parkesburg couple refute Best Western's denials that its stage setup didn't lead to husband's injuries

PENNSYLVANIA RECORD

Friday, November 22, 2024

Parkesburg couple refute Best Western's denials that its stage setup didn't lead to husband's injuries

State Court
Thomasdhoughton

Houghton | Tom Houghton Law

LANCASTER – A Parkesburg couple stand by their allegations that a local Best Western resort was negligent in using an elevated platform stage without railings, which caused one of the plaintiffs to fall from the platform and suffer a multitude of injuries.

Daniel K. Williams and Baleria L. Williams first filed suit in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas on March 8 versus Thirty, Inc. (doing business as “Eden Resort & Suites” and/or “Best Western Eden Resort”), of Lancaster.

“On April 27, 2019, at approximately 6:30 p.m., plaintiff, Daniel Williams was then and there lawfully on the defendant’s premises as a guest and business invitee, giving a speech on a ‘rail-less’ stage in the ‘Chrystal 1’ room – to an organization called ‘Women Destined for Change’, when he thereafter completed said speech, took a few steps back away from the podium and fell off the stage, resulting in severe and permanent personal injuries, all to his great detriment and loss,” the suit stated.

“On or about said date and time of this incident, the defendant was negligent and careless in allowing guests, invitees, patrons, customers and users of their facilities, such as plaintiff and the organization he was then and there addressing, to use an elevated stage/platform without railings, and/or a least to ensure that said stage/platform was placed against the back wall eliminating said dangerous space/drop-off; said failure to do so – resulting in the severe and permanent personal injuries of the plaintiff as aforesaid.”

The plaintiffs alleged the defendant was negligent on several grounds in causing Daniel’s injuries.

“As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and carelessness of the defendant, plaintiff suffered serious and permanent injuries, including but not limited to, A complete tear of the right triceps tendon, resulting in surgical intervention, recovery and an intensive regimen of physical therapy, neck injuries, along with emotional, mental and physical distress, embarrassment and humiliation, scarring and disfigurement, and a permanent shock to his nervous system, along with a permanent loss of a bodily function, all of which have caused him and will continue to cause him great pain and agony and have prevented him and will continue to prevent him in the future from attending to his daily duties and occupation, all to his great financial damage and loss,” per the suit.

UPDATE

The defendant filed an answer on Oct. 12, arguing among other things that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

“Defendant hereby asserts that the claims of the plaintiff are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of the assumption of the risk and/or comparative negligence. Defendant hereby asserts that the plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted against defendant. Defendant hereby denies any negligence, carelessness or failure in any duties allegedly owed to the plaintiff on its part,” the defendant’s new matter stated.

“Defendant asserts that if the plaintiff sustained any injuries/damages as alleged in the complaint, the facts being specifically denial by the answering defendant, those injuries/damages were caused by the acts or omissions of persons other than the answering defendant over whom/which the answering defendant had no control or right of control. Defendant incorporates, as though fully set forth herein, the affirmative defenses delineated under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1030.”

The plaintiffs filed a reply to the defendant’s new matter the following day, Oct. 13.

“These paragraphs are denied as conclusions of fact and law to which no further responsive pleading is required. Strict proof is demanded under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure,” their reply said.

For counts of negligence and loss of consortium, the plaintiffs are seeking damages in excess of $50,000, plus costs, delay damages and interest to be determined at the time of trial.

The plaintiffs are represented by Thomas D. Houghton of Tom Houghton Law, in Lancaster.

The defendant is represented by Patrick J. Moran of William J. Ferren & Associates, in Hartford, Conn.

Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas case CI-21-01388

From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com

More News