PHILADELPHIA – A local woman claims that a negligently-placed and overturned traffic control sign placed on a city sidewalk caused her to fall and suffer serious injuries.
Valerie Dougherty of Philadelphia initially filed suit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on Feb. 28 versus Road Safe Traffic Systems, Inc. of York.
“On or about Dec. 6, 2019 at approximately 11:45 a.m., plaintiff was walking on the sidewalk of 12th Street, between Chestnut and Market Streets, Philadelphia, PA, when she tripped and fell over the base of an overturned traffic-control sign on that sidewalk,” the suit says.
“Plaintiff Valerie Dougherty, at the time and place of the aforementioned occurrence, was proceeding with due care and caution under circumstances and did not know of the improper, dangerous and unsafe condition of the said portion of the premises. Based on information received during the course of discovery in a related lawsuit, it is alleged that defendant Road Safe provided and placed the aforementioned road sign at the above location.”
The suit alleges that the defendant “negligently and carelessly placed the traffic-control sign on the sidewalk, thereby creating a tripping hazard, despite the fact that defendant knew that this was a heavily-traveled sidewalk” – and that it “negligently, carelessly, and/or recklessly, failed to warn or otherwise make persons upon the premises aware of the said dangerous condition when defendant knew or should have realized the said condition involved unreasonable risk to harm to pedestrians.”
“As a sole result of the aforesaid accident, plaintiff has sustained severe and painful injuries, including but not limited to, the following: right elbow Monteggia fracture requiring multiple surgeries, right ulnar fracture, and right wrist tear. She has suffered other serious orthopedic, neurological and soft tissue injuries, the full extent of which have not as yet been ascertained; she has sustained a severe shock to her nerves and nervous system, and has suffered excruciating and agonizing aches, pains and mental anguish, some or all of which are or may be permanent in nature,” the suit states.
“As a direct result of the injuries sustained in the aforementioned accident, plaintiff has incurred and is continuing to incur medical and related bills and expenses for medical attention and care and has been required to expend various sums of money and incur other related expenses on account of the severe injuries she has suffered, and of which he will probably continue to incur and he obliged to make such continuing expenditures for an indefinite period of time in the future, all of which is to her great financial detriment and loss.”
The defendant answered the complaint on March 21 with no less than 16 affirmative defenses on its own behalf, denying the plaintiff’s assertions in their totality.
“Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against answering defendant. Negligence on the part of answering defendant is denied. The claims against answering defendant may be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiff’s claims may be barred or her recovery may be limited by the application of 42 Pa. C.S. Section 7102. Answering defendant owed no duty with respect to the incident at issue. Answering defendant breached no duty it may have owed with respect to the incident at issue. Answering defendant’s conduct was not the legal or factual cause of the alleged incident. The nature, existence, origin, causation, amount, duration and extent of the injuries, damages and losses claimed are at issue and answering defendant demands proof of the same by plaintiff; as required by law,” per the defendant’s answer.
“Plaintiff suffered injuries, losses and/or damages as alleged, then the same were caused or contributed to by conditions or persons over whom answering defendant had no control and for which answering defendant is not responsible. The conduct of persons and/or entities other than answering defendant constitutes an intervening, superseding cause obviating any liability on the part of answering defendant, the existence of such liability being expressly and specifically denied. Plaintiff may have failed to mitigate her damages. Answering defendant did not own, possess, or control the premises at issue. No defect existed which would constitute a hazardous or unsafe condition in the premises at issue. Answering defendant had no knowledge of any defect or hazardous or unsafe condition of the premises. Any alleged defect or hazardous or unsafe condition was open and obvious and known to the plaintiff. Answering defendant reserves the right to raise additional defenses as this case proceeds through discovery and towards trial.”
On March 30, citing diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount of damages at hand, the defendant removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
“As alleged in the complaint, plaintiff resides at 2839 South Alder Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19148, therefore, plaintiff is a citizen of Pennsylvania. For diversity purposes, a corporate party is a citizen of the state it has been incorporated in and the state where it has its principal place of business. Defendant, RoadSafe Traffic Systems, Inc., is a corporation that was incorporated under the laws of Delaware, and its principal place of business is located in Chicago, Illinois,” according to the removal notice, in part.
“Although plaintiff does not quantify the exact damages, she seeks compensation in excess of $50,000 for her alleged ‘severe and painful injuries’ as a result of the subject trip-and-fall accident, including fractures requiring surgeries, some of which are alleged to be or may be permanent in nature, past and future medical costs, and non-economic damages. While RoadSafe reserves the right to challenge the extent of plaintiff’s damages, the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds $75,000.”
For a lone count of negligence, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of $50,000, plus interest, attorney’s fees and costs of suit.
The plaintiff is represented by Martin Stanshine of Stanshine & Sigal, in Philadelphia.
The defendant is represented by Michael Salvati of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, also in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:22-cv-01207
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 211101970
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com