PHILADELPHIA – A Chester County couple who alleged that the wife-plaintiff was injured while aboard the Spirit of Philadelphia yacht and pursued claims the ship’s operators for negligence-related damages have settled their case.
Melinda LeSage and Herbert J. LeSage, Jr. of Lincoln University initially filed suit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on May 10 versus City Cruises Philadelphia, Spirit of Philadelphia and Entertainment Cruises, Inc., all of Philadelphia.
“On or about Aug. 10, 2019, at approximately 3:45 p.m., plaintiff Melinda LeSage was a business invitee on the Spirit of Philadelphia Yacht and, while exercising due care and caution for her own safety, was caused to trip, stumble and fall by reason of the presence of a three-inch raised threshold above a landing, thereby causing a dangerous, defective and hazardous condition,” the suit said.
“The dangerous condition of the raised threshold created a reasonably foreseeable risk that guests such as plaintiff would trip, stumble and fall and incur injury. As a result of the aforesaid, plaintiff sustained serious, painful, and permanent injuries, as more particularly described herein.”
The suit said that the defendants committed “failure to use ordinary care and diligence to warn patrons of the raised threshold, and to keep the doorway in a condition reasonably safe for its intended uses.”
“By failing to warn or caution of the raised threshold on the Spirit of Philadelphia on Aug. 10, 2019, defendants created a dangerous and/or hazardous condition, of which defendants were aware, should have been aware, or could have been aware through the exercise of ordinary care, and breached their duty to public invitees and plaintiff herein,” the suit stated.
“Plaintiff's fall and resultant injuries were caused by the aforesaid acts of negligence on the part of defendants or their agents, servants and/or employees, who failed to utilize reasonable care to warn of said reasonably foreseeable hazard or dangerous condition. As a result of the aforesaid, plaintiff sustained injuries to her neck, back, legs and head, including but not limited to: A fracture to her right distal femur requiring surgical repair and multilevel degenerative thoracic and lumbar sprain spondylosis.”
On June 30, the defendants filed to remove the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on the bases of diversity jurisdiction between the parties and the amount of damages at issue.
“Defendant City Cruises Philadelphia is a brand name of Hornblower Cruises and Events, LLC, which replaced Spirit Cruises, LLC via a name change in 2020. Defendant Entertainment Cruises, Inc. is a predecessor corporation of Hornblower Cruises and Events, Inc., which replaced Entertainment Cruises, Inc. via a name change in 2020. Their principal place of business is located at 455 North Cityfront Drive, Suite 2600, Chicago, IL 60611,” according to the removal notice.
“Hornblower Cruises and Events, LLC and Hornblower Cruises and Events, Inc., are organized under Hornblower Group, Inc., which is a domestic corporation organized pursuant to the laws of the state of California. Its principal place of business is Pier 3, The Embarcadero, San Francisco, CA 9411. None of the removing defendants is incorporated or otherwise organized pursuant to the laws of Pennsylvania. Moreover, their principal places of business are not, and never were located in Pennsylvania. Based upon the allegations of plaintiffs’ complaint, the amount in controversy in this action is in excess of $75,000, exclusive of costs and interest, as plaintiff has alleged damages in excess of $50,000 in the complaint.”
The defendants filed an answer to the complaint along with affirmative defenses on July 14, discounting liability and denying that any dangerous condition existed on the vessel. This was further emphasized in the included defenses.
“Answering defendants deny all averments in the complaint not specifically admitted in its responses above. Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiff is barred from asserting that answering defendants are liable for any losses that allegedly were suffered by plaintiff because of the doctrine of laches. Plaintiff has failed to join necessary and indispensable parties,” per the defenses.
“Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, due to plaintiff’s failure to mitigate the damages, if any. Some or all of the damages claimed in plaintiff's complaint are not recoverable under applicable law. Answering defendants were not negligent in any manner or respect. Some or all of the damages claimed in the complaint are not recoverable under applicable law. If answering defendants did owe a duty to plaintiff and such a duty was breached, both of which answering defendants deny, then such a breach was not a proximate cause of the damages alleged in plaintiff’s complaint.”
The defendants maintained that the injured plaintiff’s losses were “caused or directly contributed to by the negligence, contributory fault, comparative fault, and/or assumption of risk of plaintiff and/or others” and the “culpable conduct and/or negligence of third parties not under the control of answering defendants was/were a direct and proximate cause of the alleged injuries of plaintiff.”
UPDATE
In a letter sent to U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Anita B. Brody on Nov. 4, plaintiff counsel explained that a settlement was recently completed and requested dismissal of the case. Terms of the settlement were not revealed.
“This letter is to provide a joint report of counsel as to the status of the above referenced matter. The parties reached a settlement on September 6, 2022, and Plaintiffs are in receipt of the settlement funds. We are requesting Dismissal of the case. Thank you for your attention to this matter,” the letter from Joseph A. Cullen Jr. stated.
Brody’s Clerk of Court, George Wylesol, submitted an order on the Court’s behalf that the case was indeed closed.
“It having been reported that the issues between the parties in the above action have been settled and upon Order of the Court pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41.1(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of this Court, it is ordered that the above action is dismissed with prejudice, pursuant to the agreement of counsel without costs,” per the Court’s order.
The plaintiffs were represented by Joseph A. Cullen Jr. of Stark & Stark, in Yardley.
The defendants were represented by Timothy D. Rau of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:22-cv-02556
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 220501279
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com