PITTSBURGH – Walmart has countered that there is no truth to claims made by the daughter and husband of a deceased Beaver Falls woman, surrounding alleged negligence pertaining to severe leg injuries the decedent suffered in one of its local stores prior to her passing.
Danielle Barrett (individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Janet Simon, deceased) and Joseph Simon of Beaver Falls filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Sept. 21 versus Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P. and Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc. (both doing business as “Wal-Mart Supercenter”) of Harrisburg.
“On or about July 3, 2020, decedent was lawfully upon the premises shopping, exercising all due care and caution for her safety, riding an electric cart in one of the premises’ aisles open and intended for business invitees’ use. At all times relevant hereto, decedent was a business invitee on the premises and was owed the highest duty of care by the defendants,” the suit said.
“At the aforesaid time and location, as decedent drove her cart with all due care and caution through the aisle, she suddenly and without warning had her leg tom open by a sharp clothing display which protruded into the customer aisle and caused decedent to suffer life-threatening injuries. The sharp clothing display protruding into the customer aisle created a hazard which was not readily visible or discernible as business invitees, such as decedent moved about the premises.”
The plaintiffs claimed that Walmart had constructive notice of the condition and failed to remedy it or make the premises safe for customers.
“As a direct and proximate result of the individual, joint and/or several negligence and carelessness of defendants, the resulting hazardous condition, and decedent’s subsequent injury, decedent suffered: severe physical injuries including significant laceration to her leg; severe pain; anxiety, depression, and emotional distress; embarrassment; loss of life’s pleasures and enjoyment of life,” the suit stated.
“As a direct and proximate result of the individual, joint and/or several negligence and carelessness of defendants, the resulting hazardous condition, decedent’s injuries, decedent underwent extensive reasonable and necessary medical treatments, including 31 stitches to her leg, skin grafting and multiple revision procedures.”
Janet later passed away on Oct. 4, 2020.
UPDATE
On Nov. 8, Walmart filed an answer to the complaint which denied its assertions and added new matter.
“Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted as to Walmart. Plaintiffs’ claims are limited to, barred by, and subject to the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 7102 et seq. Walmart pleads the affirmative defenses of assumption of the risk, comparative negligence, and contributory negligence as preserved by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1030. To the extent that may be revealed in discovery, Walmart raises as an affirmative defense the statute of limitations applicable to actions for recovery for personal injury/negligence,” according to the answer.
“Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by plaintiff’s own contributory negligence, recklessness, and/or carelessness, in general, and in the following particulars: In failing to see what was there to be seen; In failing to act in due care and caution for her own safety and in failing to anticipate and/or avoid a known and/or obvious danger. At all times relevant hereto, plaintiff was fully aware of her surroundings and, to the extent any condition existed, such condition, if any, was visible and/or open and obvious to plaintiff. Any injuries, losses, and/or damages allegedly sustained by plaintiff, which injuries, losses, and/or damages are denied, are not the result of any action and/or inaction of Walmart but rather of other persons, including plaintiff.”
The defenses added that, in its view, the decedent was responsible for her own injuries and failed to mitigate injuries and damages.
For counts of negligence and loss of consortium, the plaintiffs are seeking damages, individually, jointly and/or severally, in excess of $50,000, together with such further relief as may be appropriate.
The plaintiffs are represented by Christine V. Clarke of Ostroff Law, in Blue Bell.
The defendants are represented by Rebecca Sember-Izsak and Brook T. Dirlam of Thomas Thomas & Hafer, in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-21-011461
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com