LANCASTER – A Delaware man allegedly attacked by a goat is seeking to procure needed discovery evidence from the defendant, evidence which his attorney claims has gone unobtained, despite numerous requests to opposing counsel.
Clifford Schofield of Camden, Del. first filed suit on July 19, 2021 in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas against New Holland Sales Stables Inc., of New Holland.
Schofield alleged in his suit that on Nov. 11, 2019, he was attacked and wounded by the defendant’s goat, which was kept at a property on Fulton Street in New Holland.
Schofield claimed as a result of the attack, he suffered “serious and permanent” injuries to his shoulder which required surgery as well as impairment and serious disfigurement and aggravation of a pre-existing condition.
The plaintiff alleged the defendant committed negligence for allowing the goat, which had “vicious and violent propensities” towards humans, to roam at large. The defendant also allegedly failed to adequately restrain the goat, and negligently allowed an untrained person to maintain custody and control over the animal.
Schofield added the defendants failed to properly care for the goat to prevent it from being in a “highly agitated state” and failed to use care in the animal’s breeding, training, handling or to comply with animal ownership and animal control laws and ordinances.
In preliminary objections filed on Aug. 23, 2021, the defendant argued that the allegations of negligence targeting it were nothing more than boilerplate claims which lacked detail and specificity.
“In plaintiff’s complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendant was negligent by virtue of failing to properly control and maintain a goat that was on the property. However, plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to place defendant upon notice of the conduct it is called upon to defend. Instead of pleading facts as required by Rule 1019, plaintiff’s claim is based upon conclusory allegations,” the objections said, before quoting all paragraph of Section 8, which outlined the plaintiff’s claims of negligence against the defendant.
“The paragraphs of plaintiff’s complaint are mere boilerplate allegations of negligence, which do not apprise defendant of what it allegedly did wrong. As discussed in the seminal case of Connor v. Allegheny General Hospital, plaintiff did not provide defendant with the information necessary to prevent a later amplification to add new theories of negligence and to be able to properly answer and defend against the same.”
The defendant seeks the claim of negligence to be stricken for these reasons, or for the complaint to be amended to address this objection.
On Dec. 7, Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas Judge Leonard G. Brown III sustained the objection in most respects but denied the assertion that New Holland was negligent “in other respects that may be pointed out at time of trial” as “insufficiently clear and shall be stricken.”
In a Dec. 21 answer to the complaint, New Holland denied the plaintiff’s allegations as “conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required and same is, therefore, denied,” in addition to asserting various new matter defenses.
“Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as a matter of law. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrines of contributory and comparative negligence. Plaintiff’s claims may be barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of accord and satisfaction,” the new matter stated.
“Plaintiff’s claims are or may be barred in whole, or in part, by the terms of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. Plaintiff’s claims are based upon the conduct of parties beyond the control of answering defendants and legal responsibility for same rests with said third parties. Defendants assert all the defenses available under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a) as though set forth in full.”
UPDATE
On May 31, plaintiff counsel filed a motion to compel the defense to answer interrogatories and produce documents.
“This is a premises liability case whereby plaintiff was attacked by a goat while sitting in a public seating area located on defendant’s property. The defendant was charged with securing the goat while it remained on its premises. Counsel for plaintiff served interrogatories and a request for production of documents upon defendant with the complaint on Aug. 2, 2021. On Nov. 8, 2021, plaintiff’s counsel sent a correspondence to defendant’s counsel requesting the overdue discovery responses,” according to the motion.
“On May 12, 2022, plaintiff’s counsel sent another correspondence to defendant’s counsel requesting the overdue discovery responses. Despite plaintiff’s good faith efforts, defendant has yet to provide plaintiff with the discovery responses requested. The aforementioned discovery is relevant, material and necessary, and plaintiff will be prejudiced if full and complete discovery answers are not provided by the defendant. Under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiff is entitled to full and complete responses to the outstanding discovery requests.”
The plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of $50,000, a trial by jury and all other just relief.
The plaintiff is represented by Marc F. Greenfield of Spear Greenfield Richman Weitz & Taggart, in Philadelphia.
The defendant is represented by Rolf E. Kroll of Margolis Edelstein, in Camp Hill.
Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas case CI-21-04798
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com