PITTSBURGH – The Port Authority of Allegheny County seeks the deposition of a Bethel Park man who it feels is liable for an incident where pieces of concrete allegedly originating from the defendant’s property fell onto a light rail vehicle owned and operated by the transit group.
The Port Authority of Allegheny County first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Dec. 8 versus Jacob Ricciuti, of Bethel Park.
“On Sept. 2, 2019, a light rail vehicle (LRV) owned and operated by plaintiff Port Authority was traveling on a set of light rail tracks which adjoin defendant’s premises. There existed a dangerous, hazardous and/or unsafe condition on a hill at the rear of defendant’s premises, above the aforementioned light rail tracks, including several loose pieces of concrete that were not in any way secure or otherwise prevented from moving off the hill/defendant’s premises and onto said light rail tracks and into the pathway of an LRV,” the suit said.
“As plaintiff’s LRV was traveling outbound on the light rail tracks behind defendant’s premises, said LRV struck a piece of concrete that, upon information and belief, had moved down from the hillside of defendant’s premises, onto the light rail tracks and into the pathway of plaintiff’s LRV.”
As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned contact between the piece of concrete from defendant’s premises and plaintiff’s LRV, the vehicle was damaged in the amount of $95,210.06.
The lawsuit stated the defendant’s negligence took the form of causing and permitting the dangerous condition to exist on the premises for an unreasonable period of time, failing to maintain the premises in such a manner as to cause a risk of injury to plaintiff’s LRV using the light rail tracks adjoining the premises and failing to warn users of the light rail track adjoining’s defendant’s premises, among others.
Counsel for Ricciuti filed an answer along with new matter in the case on Feb. 3, denying the complaint as containing conclusions of law to which no response was required and demanding strict proof of the same at trial. Furthermore, it denied that the falling concrete in question came from the defendant’s property.
“The complained-of concrete and/or material may have originated from property not owned or controlled by the defendant. Upon information and belief, no material, concrete, or aggregate located on the defendant’s premises rolled down any hill or slope in the path of any light rail vehicle. Additionally, the defendant did not have a duty to secure or otherwise prevent any material or aggregate from rolling down a hill or slope,” per the answer.
In new matter, Ricciuti offered a number of affirmative defenses against the suit.
“Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The defendant raises the affirmative defense of the statute of limitations. In accordance with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1030(b), the defendant pleads the affirmative defenses of assumption of the risk, comparative negligence and contributory negligence,” according to the new matter, in part.
“Plaintiff’s injuries and damages, if any, were caused solely by the negligence of defendant Port Authority of Allegheny County and its driver/engineer/pilot and/or agent. The defendant did not owe the plaintiff any duty as alleged in the complaint. If a competent tribunal determines that the plaintiff owed any duty to the plaintiff, which defendant specifically denies, then defendant did not breach any of his duties.”
In addition to reiterating that the concrete in question that allegedly rolled down the hill or slope may have originated from property not owned or under the control of the defendant, Ricciuti’s counsel also raised the defenses of “an act of God, such as land slide, erosion, or other acts of God.”
On Feb. 18, the Port Authority filed a response to the answer and new matter.
“The averments contained…state conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response may be required, upon information and belief, said allegations are specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial,” the response stated, in part.
UPDATE
In a Dec. 29 motion to compel, the Port Authority declared its desire for a court to compel Ricciuti to provide a deposition in the case, and accused him of not being cooperative in the scheduling of that event.
“Following written discovery, the parties began to discuss the scheduling the depositions of defendant and plaintiff’s LRV operator. Throughout these discussions, on various occasions, counsel for plaintiff advised counsel for defendant that, given plaintiff’s work/office hours on Fridays in general and particularly given recent COVID-19 restrictions, the latest defendant’s deposition could be scheduled on a Friday would be at 1 p.m. On July 27, 2021, defendant’s and plaintiff’s LRV operator’s depositions were scheduled for Monday, Oct. 11, 2021. On Friday, Oct. 8, 2021, counsel for defendant canceled the depositions previously scheduled for Monday, Oct. 11, 2021, apparently due to scheduling conflicts,” the motion to compel stated.
“From Oct. 11, 2021 to the present, counsel for plaintiff and defendant have been in regular communication regarding the rescheduling of defendant’s deposition which was canceled by defendant. In short, despite counsel for plaintiff’s regularly-discussed limitations regarding plaintiff’s office/work hours on Fridays as set forth above, defendant refuses to provide any available dates and times for his deposition other than on a Friday beginning at 2:30 p.m. It is plaintiff’s assessment of the above-referenced scenario that, based on defendant’s personal beliefs regarding his liability in the above-captioned matter, defendant is refusing to be cooperative in the scheduling of his deposition.”
The Port Authority argues it “has been and continues to be severely prejudiced” in the preparation of its claims without the defendant’s deposition.
“The ‘republic is not going to collapse’ if defendant has his deposition taken during 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. work hours, as do most parties and lay witnesses who are involved in litigation matters in Allegheny County and elsewhere, on a day other than a Friday, given plaintiff’s current office/work hour scheduling during the pandemic,” per the motion.
The Port Authority requests the Court to order the defendant to appear for a deposition at its offices on Feb. 10 at 9 a.m., or be subject to sanctions.
For a count of negligence, the plaintiff is seeking damages in the amount of $95,210.06 plus costs and interest.
The plaintiff is represented by Roger W. Foley Jr., Robert L. Monks and Michael J. Cetra of the Port Authority of Allegheny County, in Pittsburgh.
The defendant is represented by Andrew A. Carpenter of the Law Office of Kelley A. Morrone, in Wexford.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-20-012387
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com