SCRANTON – A co-defendant in a Montgomery County woman’s negligence lawsuit against Amazon has discounted her claims tying it to the events at issue, while she has denied their attempt at presenting reasons to be dismissed from the case.
Lauren M. Hammond-Pabon of Norristown initially filed suit in the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas on April 8 versus Amazon.com Services, LLC, Amazon Logistics, Inc. and Amazon.com, Inc. of Seattle, Wash. and 550 Oak Ridge Road, LLC of Harrisburg.
“On Feb. 11, 2020, plaintiff Hammond-Pabon drove a tractor-trailer from Easton, Pennsylvania to the Amazon Fulfillment Center at 550 Oak Ridge Road in Hazelton, Pennsylvania, intending to drop off her fully-loaded trailer at the Amazon Fulfillment Center and pick up an empty trailer to drive back to Easton. Upon arrival at the Amazon location in Hazelton, the plaintiff was directed by agents of the defendants to the ‘off lot’ to drop off her trailer. Upon unloading her trailer at the off lot, plaintiff located the empty trailers and connected her tractor to one of the empty trailers,” the suit said.
“After connecting her tractor to the empty trailer, plaintiff got out of her tractor to wind up the empty trailer’s landing gear. As plaintiff was walking from her tractor to her trailer, she slipped on ice that had accumulated beneath standing water. Plaintiff fell to the ground and landed on her back, resulting in injuries set forth below. Plaintiff’s pain and the slipperiness of the ice made it impossible for her to get to her feet. Plaintiff laid on the ground and yelled repeatedly for help, but had to use her phone to call 911 when no one responded to her yells.”
The suit added that the defendants knew or should have known that the icy condition of the lot and the concealment of the ice beneath standing water created a risk of harm to persons using the lot, including plaintiff, exposing them to the risk of a slip-and-fall injury, and that a property owner is not permitted to needlessly endanger the public.
As a result, the suit said the plaintiff suffered strain in the muscles and tendons of her right shoulder and arm, a right rotator cuff injury, a thoracic strain, a cervical injury with radiculopathy, cervicalgia, cervical spondylosis, cervical facet joint syndrome, lumbar strain with radiculopathy, lumbago, chronic pain syndrome, traumatic ecchymosis of the right upper arm, right hip pain, right thigh pain, multiple contusions and disc injuries throughout his back.
The case was then removed to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania by the defendants on May 5, citing the amount of damages in question and diversity of citizenship between the parties.
In an amended answer to the complaint filed on June 22, Amazon denied the substance of the plaintiff’s allegations.
“Amazon denies all allegations in plaintiff’s complaint not specifically admitted herein. Such denial includes, but is not limited to, any allegations made in any heading, subheading, numbered paragraph, prayer for relief, request, or any other writing existent within, incorporated in, and referenced by plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff’s claims are barred due to her failure to state a claim against Amazon.com, Inc. upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff’s claims are barred due to her failure to state a claim against Amazon.com Services, LLC upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff’s claims are barred due to her failure to state a claim against Amazon Logistics, Inc. upon which relief can be granted,” per the answer’s affirmative defenses.
“Plaintiff failed to mitigate or otherwise act to lessen or reduce her damages alleged in the complaint. If plaintiff suffered the injuries and damages alleged in the complaint, which are denied, those injuries and damages resulted in whole or in part from her decision to confront a known risk and recovery herein is barred or diminished in accordance with the doctrine of assumption of the risk. If the plaintiff suffered the injuries and damages alleged herein, which are denied, those injuries and damages were the result of the actions or inactions of third parties over whom Amazon had no control and for whose conduct it is not responsible. If plaintiff suffered the injuries and damages alleged in her complaint, which is denied, those injuries and damages were caused in whole or in part by the negligence of the plaintiff and recovery herein is barred and/or diminished in accordance with the provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 7102.”
In a July 6 response to Amazon’s answer to the complaint, the plaintiff denied the veracity of the company’s legal conclusions.
“The allegations set forth in these paragraphs are conclusions of law, and therefore no responses are required,” the plaintiff’s response stated.
UPDATE
550 Oak Ridge Road, LLC answered the complaint on Aug. 23, denying the allegations and redirecting liability in the matter to all of its Amazon co-defendants through a cross-claim.
“550 Oak Ridge Road did not own or have an ownership interest in the ‘off-lot’/parking lot at issue at any time relevant to this action. The plaintiff fails to set forth a claim on which relief may be granted against 550 Oak Ridge Road. 550 Oak Ridge Road did not owe a duty to plaintiff under the circumstances at any time relevant to this action. 550 Oak Ridge Road did not breach any duty of care that may have owed to plaintiff at any time relevant to this action,” the Oak Ridge Road corporation’s affirmative defenses stated.
“550 Oak Ridge Road believes and therefore avers plaintiff’s conduct may otherwise evince a knowing and express assumption of risks of harm in acting or failing to act as alleged in plaintiff’s complaint. 550 Oak Ridge Road believes and therefore avers plaintiff’s claims are or may be barred by application and operation of the Assumption of the Risk Doctrine. 550 Oak Ridge Road denies liability for any injuries suffered by plaintiff and are, or which may be, proven to be, pre-existing and/or not caused by the incident at issue. If any defect on the subject premises existed as plaintiff alleges, which 550 Oak Ridge Road denies, plaintiff had a safer choice or an alternative path and/or ignored the safer choice and/or alternative path to her own detriment.”
Hammond-Pabon responded to these defenses on Aug. 25.
“Defendant owned the premises as set forth in the complaint. The allegation set forth in the remaining paragraphs are conclusions of law, and therefore no responses are required,” the plaintiff’s brief responsive defenses said.
For counts of negligence, private nuisance, intentional trespass to real property, negligent trespass to real property, conversion of timber and equitable relief, the plaintiffs are seeking
The plaintiff is represented by Michael B. Smith of Fanelli Evans & Patel, in Pottsville.
The defendants are represented by Allison M. Patterson of Litchfield Cavo, Maria G. Perri-Quinn and Salvatore A. Clemente of Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, all in Philadelphia, plus Norman D. Namey of Bennett Bricklin & Saltzburg, in Blue Bell.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 3:22-cv-00663
Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas case 202110822
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com