MEDIA – A local apartment complex argues it is not to blame for broken glass-related injuries suffered by the young son of a Swarthmore woman, and denies her allegations of negligence made against it.
Ziquan Mao (a minor by his parents and natural guardian, Jing Zhao) and Jing Zhao in her own right of Swarthmore filed suit in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas on May 19 versus Swarthmore Apartments Associates, L.P. and Media Real Estate, both of Media.
“On or about April 29, 2018, at or about 10:40 a.m., the minor plaintiff, Ziquan Mao, was lawfully exiting the defendants’ apartments at 111 S. Chester Road, Swarthmore, Pa., when due to the negligence and carelessness of the defendants, Swarthmore Apartments Associates, L.P. & Media Real Estate, acting through its agents, servants, workmen, and/or employees, when he pushed the main unit door and the glass broke causing the minor plaintiff to sustain serious and permanent injuries,” the suit said.
“As a result of the aforesaid, the minor plaintiff, Ziquan Mao, sustained the following serious injuries: Laceration of the right forearm requiring 21 stitches; together with various other injuries, the exact extent of which are unknown at this time; shock and injury to his nerves, emotional and nervous system, which injuries are of a permanent nature with permanent disabilities and loss of function.”
The suit continued that as a further result of the defendants’ negligence, the minor plaintiff Ziquan Mao, has in the past and may in the future experience great physical, mental and emotional pain and suffering and other non-economic losses.
“The aforementioned negligence of the defendants consisted of the following: Negligent installation and maintenance of glass panes on the front entrance/exit door; Failing to warn tenants of the dangerous condition of said front entrance/exit door; Failing to warn the minor plaintiff of the dangerous condition of which it had, or could and should have knowledge or notice of in time to have remedied same; Maintaining a dangerous condition upon the premises; Failing to anticipate the hazard to which the minor plaintiff was exposed; Failure to use shatterproof glass on the front entrance/exit door; Failure to use plexiglass or some non-breakable alternative on the front entrance/exit doors; Violating Boca Code Section 50.24,” the suit stated.
“The plaintiff Jing Zhao avers that at all times aforesaid, she was the mother of the minor plaintiff and has been supporting the minor plaintiff, and that as such, as a result of the aforesaid. Plaintiff Jing Zhao has in the past and may and probably will in the future be obliged to lay out, expend or incur divers expenses, monies, bills or losses in the effort to have the said minor treated for the injuries sustained; and has been and probably will be deprived of said minor’s services and earnings.”
UPDATE
The defendants filed an answer and new matter in the case on Aug. 2, denying any responsibility for the boy’s injuries and countering that the plaintiffs were at fault.
“Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted as stated against defendants. Some or all of plaintiffs’ claims are barred or limited due to plaintiffs’ voluntary assumption of the risk and/or contributory negligence (comparative negligence) which were substantial factors in bringing about any harm alleged. The damages alleged by plaintiffs were caused by factors unrelated to the negligence, if any, by defendants, but were rather caused by the action or lack of action of third parties unrelated to defendants over which defendants had no control or supervision,” per the new matter.
“Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrines of res judicata/collateral estoppel, release/waiver, choice of ways and superseding intervening clause. Defendants believe, and therefore aver, that defendants are entitled to the right of indemnification by apportionment against all other parties and persons whose negligence contributed proximately to the happening of the claimed accident or alleged injuries.”
The defendants said they had no legal obligation or responsibility to maintain keep safe or is in any way legally liable to the plaintiffs, that the doctrine of sudden emergency bars plaintiffs’ recovery against defendants, that the Defendants acted at all material times “with all due reasonable prudence, caution and in conformity with all required legal standards under the circumstances, and the conduct of defendants was not negligent nor the cause of plaintiff’s alleged injuries, if any,” and finally, that the plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the application of the statute of limitations.
For multiple counts of negligence, the plaintiffs are seeking damages in excess of the arbitration limits.
The plaintiff is represented by David S. Berman of Matkoff Shengold Burke Blyweiss & Arbitter, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by James H. Lutz of Lutz & Associates, in Media.
Delaware County Court of Common Pleas case CV-2022-003517
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com