PITTSBURGH – A Penn State University student who suffered a series of full-body injuries, including a lacerated spleen, after falling out of his residence’s window during a hallway race with his friends, has reiterated negligence claims against the property’s managers.
Michael Anthony Amato of Lower Gwynedd first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Aug. 16 versus College Avenue Properties, L.P. and McKinney Properties, Inc. (a.k.a. McKinney Real Estate Group, Inc.), both of Pittsburgh.
“On Aug. 22, 2021, plaintiff Amato was lawfully at his residence, the same site of the incident, located at 747 East Beaver Avenue, in the hallway with fellow Pennsylvania State University students. At no point prior to Aug. 22, 2021 did the defendants perform recorded testing for the windows contained in the building located at 747 East Beaver Avenue, including but not limited to, Proof Load Tests, Wind Speed Tests, Fire Resistant Testing, Framing and/or Guard Rail Necessity Tests, or related inspections and/or testing,” the suit said.
“Plaintiff Amato, among other Pennsylvania State University students, were lawfully in the hallway of the aforementioned building where the subject incident occurred. Plaintiff Amato was challenged to a friendly race down the length of the hallway, with the finishing point next to the window, the same window that Amato fell through.”
The suit reiterated that the defendants did not perform required testing to determine and establish the strength and safety of the window in question.
“During the course of the race, which lasted no more than 30 seconds, plaintiff Amato and the fellow student ran down the hallway and headed towards the end of the hallway. Prior to Aug. 22, 2021, no portion of the windows, on any floor, were surrounded by guard rails, or some type of barrier or barricade to alert the residents of the very thin glass, thus creating unobstructed access to that subject weak window glass,” the suit stated.
“Due to the defendants’ dangerous and negligent design, construction, installation and/or maintenance of the glass windows located at the end of the hallway, plaintiff Amato went through the window and plummeted violently approximately 31 feet onto the hard and unforgiving cement sidewalk outside of the building’s entrance, suffering permanent, serious, painful and life-altering injuries.”
In an answer to the complaint filed on Oct. 10, the defendants admitted to owning and maintaining the property in question, but countered that the plaintiff “did not fall through the window, but instead, smashed through the window due to his own conduct” and denied the perception that the window glass was weak.
“Venue is improper. The proper venue is Centre County, Pennsylvania. To the extent that the plaintiff sustained damages set forth in the complaint, any right of recovery against the defendants being specifically denied, then the plaintiff’s claims are barred or must be reduced or diminished by his own comparative and contributory negligence and the same is hereby pleaded as an affirmative defense. Defendants raise as an affirmative defense the provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. The plaintiff’s claims may be barred and/or limited by the defense of assumption of the risk. At all times material hereto, defendants aver that the plaintiff entered and/or encountered an open and obvious condition. At all times material hereto, defendants acted prudently with the degree of care necessary under the circumstances,” the answer stated.
“All injuries or damages alleged by the plaintiff, the same not being admitted, were caused wholly or in part by the carelessness and negligence of the plaintiff. To the extent justified by the evidence developed in discovery and/or testimony at the time of trial, defendants aver that the damages alleged by the plaintiff are the result of a superseding, intervening and/or independent cause over which defendants had no control and in no way participated. To the extent justified by the evidence obtained through discovery or testimony obtained at the time of trial, defendants reserve the right to assert any and all affirmative defenses which may be appropriate.”
UPDATE
Through an Oct. 17 reply to the defense’s new matter, the plaintiff denied it in its entirety.
“The averments contained in the corresponding paragraphs are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleadings are required, and to the extent the averments contained in the corresponding paragraphs are factual in nature, the same are denied and deemed to be at issue pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial,” the plaintiff’s reply stated.
For one count of negligence, the plaintiff is seeking damages, jointly and severally, in excess of $50,000, plus interest, costs and delay damages, and brings this action to recover same.
The plaintiff is represented by Robert J. Mongeluzzi, Ara Richard Avrigian and K. Andrew Heinold of Saltz Mongeluzzi & Bendesky, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Thomas A. McDonnell of Summers McDonnell Hudock Guthrie & Rauch, in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-22-010169
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com