MEDIA – The Borough of Morton has denied responsibility for injuries suffered by a Delaware County woman when she fell on what she believes was a deficiently maintained sidewalk along Taylor Avenue.
Karen Freida of Broomall first filed suit in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas on April 1 versus the Borough of Morton.
“Defendant Borough of Morton, is the owner of a pedestrian sidewalk located at Taylor Avenue in Morton, Pennsylvania. Defendant Borough of Morton, is responsible for repair and maintenance of the sidewalk. The sidewalk adjoining Taylor Avenue is a pedestrian walkway bordering a municipal parking lot that members of the general public are allowed and expected to traverse. The two photographs attached as Exhibit ‘A’ depict the sidewalk and hazardous conditions at issue. The crumbling sidewalk depicted in the photograph results in an uneven surface presenting a tripping hazard to pedestrians such as plaintiff Freida,” the suit said.
“The photograph attached as Exhibit ‘B’ herein depicts the identical sidewalk in 2012, eight years prior to the incident at issue herein, and showing the hazardous deterioration that would ultimately result in plaintiff’s fall. The deteriorating sidewalk at issue directly abuts the exit/entrance driveway to the parking lot from Taylor Avenue, and it is evident that vehicles reasonably traverse the area of the sidewalk at issue undoubtedly contributing to the deterioration of the cement. At all times material hereto, plaintiff Freida was using due caution while traversing the sidewalk at Taylor Avenue.”
The suit explained that at or about 3:30 p.m. on or about May 15, 2020, while walking on the sidewalk in the subject location, the plaintiff was caused to trip and fall when her foot became caught in the deteriorating sidewalk. Further, the suit states that notice of the incident was given to the Borough of Morton by a letter dated Sept. 24, 2020.
According to the plaintiff, the Borough of Morton committed the following acts of negligence:
• Failure to properly and timely inspect the sidewalk adjoining Taylor Avenue and the adjoining municipal parking lot;
• Failure to provide a level walking surface;
• Failure to adequately maintain and repair the subject sidewalk;
• Failure to warn plaintiff of the tripping hazard associated with the deteriorating sidewalk where plaintiff suffered her fall;
• Failure to properly design, construct, repair and maintain the area surrounding the exit/egress to the municipal parking lot adjoining Taylor Avenue as described herein;
• Causing and/or permitting unsafe conditions to become or remain in the area of the sidewalk as described herein.
“As a result of the aforesaid fall, Freida suffered severe, painful and permanent injuries including but not limited to: right shoulder injuries, right knee injuries, radiculopathy, right wrist injuries, neck injuries, loss of range of motion, weakness, pain, humiliation, embarrassment, anguish and will continue to suffer the same for an indefinite period of time into the future,” the suit stated.
“As a result of her fall and the resulting injuries referenced herein, plaintiff has suffered a loss of life’s pleasures and enjoyment and will continue to suffer the same for an indefinite period of time into the future for which claim is made. As a result of her fall and the resulting injuries referenced herein, plaintiff has expended various sums of money in an effort to treat and cure her injuries and will incur additional expenses for an indefinite period of time into the future for which claim is made.”
UPDATE
On May 10, the Borough answered the complaint – denying its substantive allegations and admitting that the Borough only owns a portion of the sidewalk located on Taylor Avenue, rather than the entire sidewalk.
In its new matter, the Borough contends that the plaintiff was in fact liable for her own injuries.
“Plaintiff may have been comparatively or contributorily negligent. The plaintiff may have assumed the risk of injuries by engaging in an activity which may have resulted in his alleged injuries. Defendant is a local agency entitled to immunity from suit and damages as set forth in 42 Pa. C.S.A. Section 8501 and 42 Pa. C.S.A. Section 8541, et seq. and answering defendant asserts each and every defense, bar, and or limitation of damages contained in the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, 42 Pa.C.S. Section 8541, et seq. All claims against answering defendant may be barred due to plaintiff’s failure to give the requisite six-month notice of the location where plaintiff’s alleged accident occurred. Some or all of plaintiff’s claims against answering defendant may be barred by the applicable statute of limitations,” per the Borough’s new matter.
“Plaintiff’s injuries may have been caused or contributed to by the negligence of persons over which answering defendant had no control. Plaintiff has not alleged any cause of action which falls within any of the exceptions to governmental immunity set forth at 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 8542(b). All affirmative defenses under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1030 are asserted and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. Plaintiff’s recovery is barred or diminished to the extent he failed to mitigate his damages. Answering defendant had no prior notice of any alleged defective or dangerous condition.”
For a lone count of negligence, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of $50,000, together with costs and compensation for delay as this Honorable Court deems appropriate.
The plaintiff is represented by George G. Rassias of Schmidt Kirifides & Rassias, in Media.
The defendant is represented by Jennifer Holsten Maddaloni of Holsten Associates, also in Media.
Delaware County Court of Common Pleas case CV-2022-002303
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com