PITTSBURGH – An Aldi shopper who claimed that an accumulated, sticky substance on the floor of a store located in Penn Hills was the cause of an injurious fall she sustained, has denied that she was contributorily negligent.
Marilyn Lucas of Pittsburgh initially filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Dec. 14, 2020 versus Aldi, Inc. (Pennsylvania) of Batavia, Ill., Aldi, Inc. of Philadelphia and Maret Development, L.P., also of Pittsburgh.
“The accident hereinafter complained of occurred on Jan. 3, 2019, inside the defendants’ aforementioned premises. On the aforesaid date and time, the plaintiff, as a business invitee, was proceeding through the grocery store, in a lawful, careful and prudent manner, when she slipped and fell on a slippery/sticky substance which had negligently been allowed to accumulate and remain on the floor, thereby causing injuries to the plaintiff,” the suit stated.
Lucas accused the defendants of failing to inspect and repair the defect to the premises, or warn customers of the hazardous condition.
“By reason of the carelessness and negligence of the defendant, the plaintiff suffered the following injuries, all of which are or may be of a serious and permanent nature: Left ankle sprain, left torn meniscus, lumbar sprain/strain and left hip injury,” per the suit.
Aldi answered the complaint 11 months later, on Nov. 15, charging that it had not been negligent in its operation of the store on the day when Lucas had her fall and subsequent injuries.
“The claims of the plaintiff are barred and/or limited by the applicable provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act and/or plaintiff’s own contributory negligence. Plaintiff’s claims are barred and/or limited by the Doctrine of Assumption of Risk. Plaintiff’s claims against Aldi, Inc. are barred as Aldi, Inc. has been dismissed with prejudice from the lawsuit by way of stipulation filed and approved by the Court. Plaintiff’s claims are barred and/or limited as the injuries and damages alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff were caused by individuals and/or entities over whom answering defendant had no control and had no duty to control,” the answer read, in part.
“Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff’s claims against answering defendant may be barred and/or limited to the extent discovery reveals that plaintiff has failed to mitigate her damages. Plaintiff’s claims are barred and/or limited as answering defendant has performed each and every duty owed to the plaintiff. Plaintiff’s claims are barred and/or limited as answering defendant has breached no duty, either implied or expressed, to the plaintiff.”
The store added it had no knowledge of any dangerous condition on its property at the time in which the plaintiff sustained her injuries.
UPDATE
The plaintiff replied to Aldi’s new matter on Feb. 25, denying that her claims are barred by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act and/or the Doctrine of Assumption of the Risk.
“Paragraphs 18-32 [minus Paragraph 20, which is admitted] assert conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading may be required, those paragraphs are denied,” per the plaintiff’s reply.
For a count of negligence, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of the jurisdictional arbitration limits.
The plaintiff is represented by Kenneth G. Fawcett of Bowers Fawcett & Hurst, in Ambridge.
The defendants are represented by Michael A. Weiner of Bennett Bricklin & Saltzburg in Pittsburgh and Scott T. Redman of the Law Office of Kelley A. Morrone, in Wexford.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-20-012593
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com