PHILADELPHIA – A Bensalem fitness facility discounts all liability towards a negligence lawsuit it faces from a Philadelphia couple, who claimed that it was negligent in maintaining the safety of its treadmill machines, leading the wife-plaintiff to fall off said machine and suffer severe injuries.
Nicole Webb and Jason Webb of Philadelphia initially filed suit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on Oct. 8 versus Fitness Holdings Northeast, LLC (doing business as “Crunch Fitness”), of Bensalem.
“On Feb. 8, 2020, plaintiff was exercising at the Crunch Fitness located at 1336 Bristol Road in the City of Bensalem and County of Bucks, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, while exercising due care and caution for her own safety, plaintiff was stepping off the treadmill when suddenly and without warning the treadmill belt started to move, causing plaintiff to fall and sustain personal injuries and damages,” the suit said.
“Plaintiff avers that it was the duty of the defendant to provide a safe means of passage of their property and or use of the exercise equipment, specifically the treadmill, so as not to cause harm and/or injury to its business invitees.”
The plaintiffs maintained that it was the defendant’s responsibility to manage, control, inspect, maintain and repair their exercise equipment, so that it would be able to be used in a safe condition and free from all defects.
“As a result of the defendant’s negligence and the accident caused thereby, plaintiff sustained severe injuries to her left ankle, right knee, right leg, neck, back, body, limbs and internal organs, more particularly she sustained a C3-C4 annular tear with herniation indents in the ventral thecal sae, C4-C5 broad based disc herniation, C5-C6 broad based disc herniation with super imposed bulge , moderate to severe bilateral foraminal stenosis, C6-C7 disc bulge, cervical radiculopathy, straightening of the normal cervical lordosis compatible with muscle spasm, left ankle sprain/strain, right knee contusion and swelling of the lateral malleolus, as well as various other injuries and aggravation to pre-existing conditions,” the suit stated.
“As a further result of the foregoing, the plaintiff has been obliged to receive and undergo medical attention and care and to incur various expenses for the same, and she may be obliged to continue to undergo such medical care and to incur such medical expenses for an indefinite time in the future.”
The defendant removed the suit to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Nov. 16.
UPDATE
In a Dec. 7 answer to the complaint, the fitness center denied any and all allegations of negligence and provided no less than 15 affirmative defenses to that effect.
“Answering defendant is free of any and all negligence. Plaintiff is guilty of sole and/or contributory negligence which was the proximate cause of the damages or personal injuries complained of; therefore, plaintiff is barred from recovery. The negligence of the plaintiff is greater than the negligence of the answering defendant; which negligence is denied, and such negligence of the plaintiff was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s accident, personal injuries and damages about which plaintiff now complains and; therefore, barred from recovery in this cause by the provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act,” the defenses read, in part.
“Plaintiff’s recovery for personal injuries and/or damages shall be diminished by the percentage of the total negligence attributable to the plaintiff under the terms and provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. Any and all damages and/or personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff is the result of the acts and negligence of third persons or parties over whom the answering defendant exercised no control. The complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted and the answering defendant; therefore, reserves the right to move to dismiss the complaint. The cause of action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations.”
In further defenses, the fitness center argues that it is to a credit or set off with respect to all collateral payments to plaintiffs for injuries of damages arising from the wrong alleged, that its conduct was privileged either absolutely or conditionally that the plaintiff intentionally exposed herself to a known hazard with knowledge of the probable results, thereby barring or limiting her claim and that it had no notice or knowledge of the condition alleged to have caused or contributed to the alleged defect.
For counts of negligence and loss of consortium, the plaintiffs are seeking damages in excess of $50,000, exclusive of interest, costs, attorney fees and delay damages.
The plaintiffs are represented by Shirlee M. Friedman of Lipschutz & Friedman, in Philadelphia.
The defendant is represented by Roberto K. Paglione of the Law Offices of Terkowitz & Hermesmann, in Marlton, N.J.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:21-cv-05049
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 211000572
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com