MEDIA – A Delaware County man has discontinued claims that mopping liquid left on a set of stairs at a local restaurant by one of its employees led him to fall on those same stairs and sustain serious and significant injuries.
Matthew Titus of Glenolden first filed suit in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas on Feb. 10, 2021 versus A Taste of Key West Morton, LLC of Morton, A Taste of Key West, LLC of Ridley Park, plus Ann Eve Dougherty and George Dougherty (doing business as “A Taste Of Key West”), both of Wallingford.
“On April 19, 2019, plaintiff was within the subject property for a business purpose benefitting the defendants and was therefore a business invitee and/or business visitor and was owed the highest duty of care by the defendants,” the suit said.
“At this time, plaintiff was traversing the interior of the subject property when suddenly and without warning, plaintiff was caused to slip on stairs due to the presence of mopping liquid which was left unattended on the subject stairs, which condition was caused by a female employee, agent, and/or ostensible agent, who had been mopping the floor, but who had also informed plaintiff that the stairs and floor were dry. As a result, plaintiff was caused to fall onto the stairs and sustain serious and permanent injuries.”
The suit claimed that the defendants were solely responsible for the incident and failed to utilize any warning signs, or any other warning device to notify and warn anyone at the subject property of the significantly dangerous and defective condition.
“As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and carelessness of the defendants, as aforesaid, plaintiff was caused to sustain serious and permanent injuries in, on and about his person, including but not limited to injuries to his back, ribs, shoulders, torso, arms and psychological and emotional injuries, together with various other injuries, the exact extent of which are unknown at this time, but which are of a permanent nature,” per the suit.
“All of plaintiff’s injuries cause disabilities and loss of function, which have caused and will continue to cause a great deal of embarrassment, humiliation, pain, suffering, agony, inconvenience, and which are permanent in name and character, a claim for all of which is herein made.”
In an answer to the complaint filed May 3, 2021, the defendants asserted numerous defenses which they say should lead to the dismissal of the complaint.
“Answering defendants entered into a Management Agreement with Live on Locust, LLC on June 14, 2018. This Management Agreement was also executed by plaintiff. At the time of the subject incident, the Management Agreement was in full force and effect. At the time of the subject incident, answering defendants were not receiving any proceeds or revenue from the operation of the subject premises. Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim against answering defendants upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff’s complaint may be barred by the applicable statute of limitation,” the answer stated, in part.
“Plaintiff suffered no compensable injuries damages and/or losses for which answering defendants may be liable. This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. This Court lacks personal jurisdiction over answering defendants. Answering defendants did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care. If answering defendants owed the plaintiff a duty of care, Answering defendants did not breach a duty of care owed to the plaintiff. Plaintiff‘s injuries were not the result of the answering defendants bleach of duty of care.”
These, in addition to numerous other defenses, were brought seeking dismissal of the complaint in its entirety, according to defense counsel.
On May 26, 2021, counsel for the plaintiff unanimously denied the defendants’ new matter in a response filing.
“The averments set forth in the within paragraph of defendant’s new matter directed to plaintiff constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. In addition, each and every averment is specifically and strictly denied,” the response stated.
“Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in the within paragraphs and therefore the allegations are denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial.”
UPDATE
Plaintiff counsel filed to discontinue the case and its claims on May 5.
“Kindly mark the above-captioned matter as discontinued and ended upon payment of prothonotary’s costs and fees only,” the praecipe to discontinue stated.
Prior to discontinuance and for a count of negligence, the plaintiff had been seeking damages, jointly and/severally, in excess of $50,000, and in excess of the prevailing limits of arbitration, plus interest, costs and compensation for delay, plus a trial by jury.
The plaintiff was represented by Justin M. Bernstein of Kenneth R. Schuster & Associates, in Media.
The defendants were represented by Francis J. Deasey and Lauren M. Steins of Deasey Mahoney & Valentini, in Philadelphia.
Delaware County Court of Common Pleas case CV-2021-001548
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com