PITTSBURGH – A Canonsburg couple maintain that injuries suffered by the husband-plaintiff when he fell on ice during a walk on the Three Rivers Heritage Trail were preventable and the fault of the group tasked to maintain the trail.
Edward J. Mulholland III and Beth Mulholland first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on April 14 versus Friends of the Riverfront, Inc., of Pittsburgh.
“On or about Jan. 23, 2022, at approximately 10 a.m., plaintiff was safely walking the trail on the premises. The location of the trail is approximately located adjacent to the property located at 230 West Station Square Drive, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219,” the suit said.
“Around the location plaintiff was walking, there was a thick sheet of ice that was permitted to accumulate on the paved surface of the trail. As plaintiff was safely walking on the paved surface of the trail, he was caused to slip and fall on the ice, causing his body to pitch forward and fall harshly to the ground.”
The suit explained that the plaintiff’s injuries were solely caused “by the carelessness, negligence and/or recklessness of the defendant, and the plaintiff’s injuries were in no manner or part whatsoever due to any failure or failure to act on the part of the plaintiff.”
“As a result of defendant’s negligence, plaintiff has suffered the following injuries: Ruptured quadriceps tendon, leg pain, hip pain and other injuries, the full extent of which may be unknown at this time,” the suit stated.
An amended complaint filed on June 21 saw Brookfield Properties (USA), LLC added as a defendant in the action.
FOR then filed an answer along with new matter and a counterclaim on July 21, denying liability for Mulholland’s injuries and asserting a cross-claim against its co-defendant, Brookfield Properties (USA).
“To the extent that discovery may establish, FOR believes and therefore avers that plaintiffs’ claims against are or may be barred, either in whole or in part, as a result of plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the applicable statute of limitations provisions. To the extent that discovery may establish, FOR believes and therefore avers that plaintiff-husband was knowledgeable about the premises in question and was familiar with the premises in question. To the extent that discovery may establish, FOR believes and therefore avers that if plaintiff-husband was injured as alleged, that said injuries were not due to the negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness of FOR, but due to plaintiff’s husband’s own negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness,” the answer stated, in part.
The answer continued that the husband-plaintiff failed to watch where he was walking, failed to make sure the area where he was walking was clear and unobstructed, failed to act as a reasonable and prudent person in doing same and failed to exercise requisite and required due care and caution.
“To the extent that discovery may establish, FOR believes and therefore avers that periodic inspections were made of the premises to make sure that the premises were safe of all conditions for business invitees and that, at the time of the events complained of, FOR had no notice or knowledge of any condition which may have provided a danger to any business invitee and/or other person under the circumstances then and there existing. To the extent that discovery may establish, FOR believes and therefore avers that if the complained-of condition is shown to have existed, which is denied, that said condition was not created by FOR and/or its agents, servants and/or employees and as such, FOR owed no duty of care to plaintiffs under the circumstances then and there existing.”
UPDATE
An Aug. 10 reply to the defendant’s new matter saw the plaintiffs deny it in its entirety.
“The averments contained in Paragraph 31-38 of defendant’s new matter constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments are generally denied pursuant to Rules 1029(d) and (e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure,” the reply stated, in part.
For counts of negligence and loss of consortium, the plaintiffs are seeking damages in excess of the applicable arbitration limits.
The plaintiffs are represented by Anthony C. Mengine and Brittani R. Hassen of Kontos Mengine Killion & Hassen, in Pittsburgh.
The defendant is represented by Bruce E. Rende of Robb Leonard Mulvihill, plus Robert J. Marino and Madison L. Miranda of Dickie McCamey & Chilcote, also in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-22-004267
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com