MEDIA – A Dominican Republic resort argues that it is not responsible for injuries suffered by one-half of a Delaware couple, when the husband-plaintiff slipped on a wet staircase and suffered injuries to his ribs, shoulders and spine.
Waldemar Piasecki and Czeslawa Mazurek-Piasecka of Newark, Del. first filed suit in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas on July 1 versus AM Resorts, L.P., (individually and doing business as “Secrets Royal Beach Punta Cana” and/or “Now Larimar Resorts and Spa”), ALG Vacations Corp., AM Resorts, L.L.C., AMR GP Holdings, L.L.C., Apple Vacations, L.L.C. (doing business as “Apple Leisure Group”), John Doe and ABC Corporations, all of Newtown Square.
“On July 25, 2019, plaintiffs were on vacation at defendants’ property known as the Secrets Resort in the Dominican Republic. In advertising the Secrets Resort, among other things, defendants promised that its ‘guests will continue to receive the highest levels of service and security’ at the resort, and advertised that the Secrets Resort complied and supported the ‘Punta Cana Promise,’ relating to safety of its property and premises,” the suit said.
“After reviewing defendants’ advertising and promises, plaintiffs were enticed to book their vacation at defendants’ property at the Secrets Resort, and paid defendants a significant amount of money to stay there. At all relevant times, plaintiffs were business invitees of defendants, and defendants owed them the highest duty of care for their safety. On the relevant date, plaintiffs were relaxing near a pool on defendants’ property, and Mr. Piasecki, a 64-year-old man, was on his way to return a ‘floatie,’ which defendants had made available for their guests to use in and around the pool area.”
The suit explained that the staircase was wet, did not have any railings or barriers, and was open on one side – and as Piasecki descended the wet staircase, he was unable to hold on to anything to assist his descent, because the staircase did not have a railing.
Subsequently, when Piasecki stepped down off of the first step, he slipped on the wet staircase and fell off to the right side where the staircase was open with no railing or barrier, striking the ground with significant force.
“At all relevant times, defendants knew or should have known about the dangerous conditions created by the lack of railings/barriers and slippery staircase next to the pool,” per the suit.
“As a result of this incident, Mr. Piasecki sustained serious and permanent injuries, including but not limited to several fractured ribs, lacerations, shoulder impingement syndrome, psychological and emotional harm, and spinal and nerve injuries. As a result of this incident, plaintiffs have been forced to expend significant amounts of money in medical and other costs, and will be forced to do so into the future.”
AMResorts, L.P. filed preliminary objections to an amended version of the case on Sept. 7, arguing that it should be dismissed from a Pennsylvania court without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, in advance of later re-filing in a court in the Dominican Republic.
“The Delaware County Court Of Common Pleas does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ claims, as the plaintiffs’ allege that the incident occurred in the Dominican Republic. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ amended complaint should be dismissed and they can re-file this action in the Dominican Republic. The owner/operator of the resort identified in the amended complaint has not been named in this action and therefore plaintiffs’ amended complaint should be dismissed for failure to join an indispensable and/or necessary part,” the objections stated, in part.
“Plaintiffs’ amended complaint contains vague generalized allegations of negligence which violate the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Paragraph 4 begins with the term ‘nonexclusively’ which also violates the specificity requirements of Pa.R.C.P. 1019 22 Paragraph 41 at subparagraphs (c) and (q) do not set forth material facts which W111 enable Defendants to answer the allegations with specificity but rather generally allege answering defendants negligence to be determined at a later date.”
The resort and its co-defendants argue they should not be forced to waste time and money defending against possible theories of liability which are not properly pled or supported by the facts contained in the plaintiffs’ amended complaint.
Delaware County Court of Common Pleas Judge Kelly D. Eckel overruled the objections on March 25.
“Upon consideration of defendants’ preliminary objections, and plaintiffs’ response thereto, it is hereby ordered that defendants’ preliminary objections are overruled. Defendants shall file an answer to plaintiffs’ complaint within 20 days of notice of this order,” Eckel said.
UPDATE
The defendants answered the complaint on April 13 with a host of affirmative defenses, claiming they could not be responsible for the husband-plaintiff’s injuries and that the case should be thrown out.
“Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part by the applicable statute(s) of limitations. Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a cause of action or causes of action against answering defendants upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiffs’ claims are or may be barred by the terms of the Fair Trade Contract, and thus the complaint should be dismissed. Plaintiffs booked an ‘Apple Vacation’, and therefore the booking was subject to the Terms & Conditions of the Apple Vacations Fair Trade Contract,” according to their answer.
“Pursuant to the Fair Trade Contract the plaintiffs’ claims were required to be submitted to arbitration in Delaware County, Pennsylvania and therefore this court has no jurisdiction in this matter. This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction in this matter. Venue in Pennsylvania is inappropriate as all alleged activities occurred in Punta Cana/Dominican Republic. All events alleged by plaintiff took place at a resort located in Punta Cana/Dominican Republic, and thus, this matter should properly have been brought in that location and jurisdiction.”
The defendants said that the plaintiffs’ injuries and/or damages were caused by “a superseding or intervening cause or event, the plaintiffs have been fully compensated/fully recovered for their alleged damages and the plaintiffs did not justifiably rely on any advertising and/or promises by answering defendants.”
For counts of negligence and loss of consortium, the plaintiff is seeking damages in an amount exceeding the arbitration limit of $50,000, along with interest, costs and any other relief this Court deems appropriate.
The plaintiff is represented by Dominik Rostocki of The Rostocki Law Firm, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Erin M. Siciliano and Caroline S. Vahey of Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, also in Philadelphia.
Delaware County Court of Common Pleas case CV-2021-005827
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com