PHILADELPHIA – A Montgomery County man reiterates allegations that he sustained a skull fracture when he slipped on an accumulated pool of water in a Folcroft flower shop, while browsing Mother’s Day flowers for his wife and accompanied by his son.
David Ullman, Dawn Ullman and Joshua Ullman of North Wales first filed suit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on Dec. 2 versus Produce Junction, Inc. of Folcroft and Produce Interchange, Inc. of Glenolden.
“On May 9, 2021, Mother’s Day, plaintiffs, David Ullman and Joshua Ullman, were patrons of the aforementioned Produce Junction to purchase flowers. Defendants were displaying flowers for purchase in the shopping area,” the suit said.
“Plaintiff David Ullman was walking with all due care and caution towards the flower display in the shopping area for the purpose of selecting Mother’s Day flowers for his wife, when suddenly and without warning he slipped and fell to the floor so forcefully that his skull fractured on impact. At the time of plaintiff David Ullman’s fall, there was an accumulation of water on the shopping area floor in and around the flower display, which made the floor wet and slippery.”
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants did “allow and/or permit and/or fail to remediate an accumulation of water which created an excessively slippery condition on the floor.”
“As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ carelessness and negligence, plaintiff David Ullman suffered severe injuries including a right occipital skull fracture, loss of consciousness, traumatic seizure, intracranial hemorrhage, traumatic brain injury, chronic headaches, chronic dizziness, loss of memory, difficulty concentrating, herniated and/or displaced discs throughout the cervical spine; loss of independence; mental and emotional pain and suffering; chronic physical pain and suffering; loss of life’s pleasures, past, present and future; loss of earnings and wages and loss of earning capacity, past, present and future; hospital, medical and rehabilitation expenses past, present and future, including medical equipment, supplies and other medical care and treatment to pay for the treatment of the severe injuries; and other psychological, psychiatric, orthopedic and neurological injuries, the full extent of which is yet to be determined and some or all of which may be permanent in nature,” the suit stated.
“The defendants’ joint and several carelessness and negligence increased the risk of harm and/or was a factual cause and/or was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injuries and damages.”
UPDATE
The defendants filed an answer to the complaint along with new matter on Feb. 28, which first denied the substance of the case as conclusions of law to which no response was necessary.
“Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and defendants reserve the right to move to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint accordingly. Plaintiffs’ complaint is barred and/or limited by the terms and conditions of the Comparative Negligence Act for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the relevant provisions of which are incorporated herein as though the same were more fully set forth at length. Plaintiffs assumed the risk of their injuries. If plaintiffs sustained any injuries and/or damages, then said injuries and/or damages were caused by the negligence of plaintiffs,” the answer’s new matter stated.
“If plaintiffs sustained any injuries and/or damages, then said injuries and/or damages were caused by the negligence of third persons and/or parties over whom defendants exercised no right or power of control. The damages complained of by plaintiffs pre-existed or are unrelated to the incident which is the subject of this complaint. Defendants deny the existence of the dangerous, unsafe, and/or defective condition as alleged in plaintiffs’ complaint. Defendants deny that it had actual and/or constructive notice of any allegedly dangerous, unsafe, and/or defective condition. Defendants had no responsibility whatsoever for servicing the area where plaintiffs allege the incident occurred.”
The defendants argued that plaintiff David Ullman failed to pay attention to where he was walking, and that the alleged incident did not occur on the subject property.
On March 3, the plaintiffs replied to the new matter statements, labeling them as “conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required, and to the extent the averments contained in the corresponding paragraph are factual in nature, the same are denied and deemed to be at issue pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e) and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.”
For multiple counts of negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiffs are seeking damages, jointly and severally, for sums in excess of $50,000 in compensatory damages, exclusive of interest, cost and delay damages, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure Section 238, and brings this action to recover same.
The plaintiffs are represented by Kevin J. Durkan and Brian E. Fritz of Fritz & Bianculli, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Richard E. Stabinski and Peter F. Cardwell of Weber Gallagher Simpson Stapleton Fires & Newby, also in Philadelphia.
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 211101752
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com