LANCASTER – A security company for the Park City Mall has denied contributory liability for a shooting incident which occurred at the site last October, and then caused a pair of shoppers trampled in the ensuing panic to sue them and the mall itself.
Lucy A. Mendenhall of Lancaster County and Wendy A. Mendenhall of Connecticut first filed suit in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas on April 4 versus Brookfield Properties (a.k.a. “Brookford Properties Retail, Inc.”, “Brookfield Development” and “Brookfield Property Partners”) of New York, N.Y. and Allied Universal Security Services (a.k.a. “C&D Enterprises”), of Conshohocken.
“On Oct. 17, 2021, Lucy and Wendy Mendenhall went to the Park City Mall at 319 Park City Center, Lancaster, PA 17601 to shop and spend time together. On that date, however, they would become victims of a senseless act of violence, when an altercation occurred between multiple individuals at the mall. One of those individuals was Jeremiah Josiah-Alberto Sanchez. At the time, Sanchez was armed with a firearm, which he had carried into Park City Mall, in violation of mall policy. During the altercation, Sanchez’s gun discharged,” the suit said.
“The altercation began in the hallway leading from the middle common space to J.C. Penney and continued toward H&M. The firearm was first discharged at or near the common hallway outside Tabarek International Food. Sanchez’s discharge of the firearm caused panic in the Park City Mall. Sanchez’s rounds struck several individuals, including an innocent bystander. More than 50 innocent bystanders were in the vicinity of the altercation and thus, the line of fire. A mass exodus from the Mall resulted from the discharge of Sanchez’s firearm. The resulting exodus and stampede caused Lucy and Wendy to be knocked down and trampled, sustaining severe injuries as they tried to escape the scene.”
The suit added that despite a history of gun violence at other Brookfield mall locations throughout the United States, which should have put the defendants on actual notice of the risk of gun violence and the need to combat it, the defendants allegedly did not implement and/or enforce a policy capable of doing that.
“In addition to the above-described history of gun violence at Brookfield locations around the U.S., Park City Mall specifically has a history of crime and violence. In the five years up to and including the subject incident, the police were called regarding an incident or complaint at the location of the Park City Mall more than 2,000 times. In the five years up to and including the subject incident, these 2,000 calls included more than ten fights and/or assaults,” the suit stated.
“This history of crime at the mall was known to defendants. The history of crime at the mall put the defendants on actual notice of the risk of violence and the need to combat it. Despite such an awareness, defendants did not reasonably and adequately combat the risk of violence, and specifically gun violence, at defendants’ locations including the mall.”
UPDATE
Defendant Allied Universal Security Services filed preliminary objections in the case on May 9, seeking to strike matter which it found to be both “scandalous and impertinent” in these proceedings – in violation of Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1028(a)(2).
“Specifically, plaintiffs’ complaint has a section titled ‘History of Gun Violence at defendant Brookfield’s Properties’ which does not have any relevance to the events that occurred at the Park City Mall. These averments allege other shooting at other malls outside of Pennsylvania and are simply trying to include irrelevant and prejudicial statements about gun violence at other malls. For example, plaintiffs state: ‘Gun violence is a reality in the United States, and one that has affected Brookfield locations in the last several years.’ Plaintiffs allege a firearm detecting dog at one Georgia property and describes in detail shootings at Wisconsin, Maryland and Georgia properties. Whether or not there have been other shooting at other malls across the country has no bearing on the legal proofs necessary for plaintiffs to prove their allegations of negligence against the defendants pursuant to Pennsylvania law,” according to the objections.
“Plaintiffs’ resuscitation of the history of gun violence at other out of state properties do not further plaintiff’s legal argument and are prejudicial. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has addressed the issue of negligent security by holding that the duty to protect patrons from the acts of a third party ‘only arises if the business owner has reason to anticipate such conduct.’ Whether there were violent incidents at other stadiums had no bearing on that Court’s decision. Therefore, other acts of gun violence at other malls across the country have no relevance here and should be stricken from the complaint.”
For multiple counts of negligence, carelessness and/or gross negligence, the plaintiffs are seeking damages, jointly and severally, in excess of the mandatory arbitration limits, in addition to any other relief this Honorable Court deems appropriate.
The plaintiffs are represented by Nathaniel L. Foote of Andreozzi & Foote, in Harrisburg.
Defendant Allied Universal Security Services is represented by Sharon Piper Donovan and Joanne R. Rubinsohn of BBC Law, in Philadelphia.
Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas case CI-22-01874
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com