PHILADELPHIA – While a Delaware County couple claim that a security door at the Federal Reserve Bank in Philadelphia opened into the husband-plaintiff’s head and injured him, the defendants are pointing fingers at one another, claiming the other is liable for the plaintiffs’ injuries.
Michael Rowling and Lori Rowling of Havertown first filed suit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on Sept. 10 versus Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia and Aeroturn, LLC of Oxford, Conn.
“On Nov. 18, 2019, at about 12:30 p.m., while attempting to gain access to the premises for a ceremony to which he was invited, one of the security entrance doors, suddenly and without warning, opened into plaintiff Michael Rowling’s head, causing him to suffer serious and/or permanent injuries,” the suit said.
“At all times relevant hereto, there were no relevant warnings affixed to or near the said security entrance door. Plaintiff Michael Rowling’s injuries were caused directly as a result of the negligence and carelessness of the defendants and were due in no manner to any acts or omissions on the part of the plaintiff.”
The suit claimed that the defendants were collectively negligent for injuries suffered by plaintiff Michael Rowling, and that the defendants failed to inspect, maintain and repair the security doors in question.
“As a direct result of the aforementioned acts and/or omissions of the defendant Bank, plaintiff Michael Rowling suffered serious and permanent injuries, including, but not limited to the following: Blunt head trauma, closed head injury, concussion, headache, vertigo, imbalance, left peripheral vestibular loss, left peripheral vestibular injury/involvement, paretic in nature and motion intolerance, along with anxiety, stress and nervous reaction, aggravation of all known and unknown conditions along with other severe and permanent injuries to the bones, muscles, tendons, ligaments, nerves and tissues of plaintiff Michael Rowling’s entire body and limbs,” the suit stated.
The suit was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 1.
UPDATE
The Federal Reserve Bank answered the complaint on Oct. 29, denying its assertions, providing a total of 20 affirmative defenses on its own behalf and levying a cross-claim against Aeroturn.
“Plaintiffs’ claims are barred and/or limited by the provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. By plaintiffs’ actions at the time, date and place stated in the complaint, plaintiffs assumed the risk of any and all injuries and/or damages which they are alleged to have suffered. Plaintiffs’ claims are or may be barred or limited by application of the terms and provisions of Pennsylvania’s ‘Fair Share Act,’ 42. Pa.C.S. Sec. 7102. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred and/or limited by the applicable statute of limitations. The complaint, or portions thereof, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,” the defenses read, in part.
“The damages alleged by plaintiffs in the complaint did not result from acts or omissions of defendant, but from acts and/or omissions of third parties over whom defendant had no control. The negligent or reckless acts or omissions of other persons or entities may constitute a superseding and/or intervening cause of the injuries claimed. The action should be dismissed for failure to join any and all necessary and indispensable parties. The plaintiffs’ claims are barred or substantially reduced because plaintiffs failed to act reasonably or timely to mitigate damages. The acts or omissions of answering defendant were not a factual cause or legal cause of the injury, loss or damage alleged by the plaintiffs.”
Meanwhile, Aeroturn filed its own answer to the complaint the very same day, Oct. 29, featuring 19 affirmative defenses and also providing a cross-claim against the Federal Reserve Bank.
“Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part by their own respective negligence in accord with the provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the defense of assumption of the risk. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by collateral estoppel and/or res judicata. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the applicable statute(s) of limitations and/or the doctrine of laches. The damages claimed to be recoverable by plaintiffs were not foreseeable,” Aeroturn’s defenses stated.
“The other defendant in this suit misused and/or altered the work done by defendant Aeroturn, LLC and/or any such alterations and/or misuse by other parties to this action wan not foreseeable. The conduct of defendant Aeroturn, LLC was not a substantial factor which contributed to the alleged damages claimed recoverable on behalf of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of waiver, estoppel and/or release. Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to set forth a cause of action against defendant Aeroturn, LLC upon which relief can be granted. At all times relevant hereto, defendant Aeroturn, LLC acted in a reasonable, proper and prudent manner.”
In their cross-claims, both defendants asserted the other was responsible for the husband-plaintiff’s injuries.
For counts of negligence and loss of consortium, the plaintiff is seeking damages, jointly and severally, not in excess of $50,000, plus interest, delay damages, costs and such other relief as is just and proper.
The plaintiffs are represented by Jeffrey R. Lessin, Mark T. Richter and Ty Patrick Ryan of Jeffrey R. Lessin & Associates, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Dishon J. Dawson of Bunker & Ray, also in Philadelphia, plus Joseph A. Juliana of the Law Office of Dennis O. Wilson, in Mount Laurel, N.J.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:21-cv-04325
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 210900657
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com