PITTSBURGH – A defendant named in a Pittsburgh couple’s personal injury suit concerning the husband-plaintiff’s fall inside of a pool table store has rejected allegations that it is liable for the plaintiffs’ injuries.
Joseph Giaramita and Carmela Giaramita first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Sept. 19 versus Pool City, Inc. and D.L. Schwarz, Inc. All parties are of Pittsburgh.
“At all times relevant and material hereto, defendant Schwarz was dismantling a pool table on the premises of Pool City, Inc., on behalf of defendant store. At the same time and place, the defendants leased, owned, operated, possessed, controlled, managed and/or maintained the premises and had a duty to inspect, maintain, repair, control, supervise and oversee the at-issue premises and to warn of and correct the dangerous conditions thereon,” the suit said.
“On June 14, 2021, the plaintiff was lawfully on the aforementioned premises for a business purpose. At all times relevant and material hereto, there existed a dangerous, defective, hazardous and/or unsafe condition on the premises of the defendants, characterized by a wooden board in the middle of the designated walkway. Plaintiff was caused to trip and/or otherwise lose his balance and fell as a result of coming into contact with the aforementioned defective condition.”
The suit added the defendants failed to notice, maintain or repair said defective condition.
“As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned incident, plaintiff sustained the following injuries, some or all of which are or may be permanent: Rotator cuff tear of right shoulder, labral tear of right shoulder, bilateral knee pre-patellar bursitis, aggravation of unilateral primary osteoarthritis of left knee, right shoulder sprain, chronic right shoulder pain, impingement syndrome of right shoulder, exaggeration of lumbar spine degenerative condition, bilateral knee pain, bilateral arm pain, and left hand pain,” the suit stated.
On Oct. 17, defendant Pool City, Inc. denied the plaintiffs’ allegations and contributed new matter which countered, among other things, that the featured plaintiff caused his own injuries – and asserted a cross-claim against its co-defendant, D.L. Schwarz, Inc.
“The defendant avers that the plaintiff may have been guilty of negligence which proximately caused and/or contributed to the injuries and/or damages of which plaintiff has complained, and that as such, plaintiff’s cause of action may be barred or reduced by the doctrine of contributory and/or comparative negligence. If it is determined at the time of trial that a dangerous or hazardous condition existed at the time of the plaintiff’s alleged accident as a result of the defendants’ actions, it is averred that said condition was open and obvious to the plaintiff and he failed to make a reasonable observation of said condition as required by law,” the new matter stated.
“In the event that it is established that the plaintiff fell on property controlled or maintained by this defendant and in the event that it is established that a dangerous or unsafe condition existed, which is denied, then it is averred that the defendant had no notice or knowledge of such condition prior to plaintiff’s alleged fall. To the extent developed in discovery, this defendant reserves the right to assert that the plaintiff’s damages may have been caused by pre-existing, intervening and/or superseding causes for which this defendant cannot be liable.”
That same day, all parties stipulated to striking the punitive damages claim in the plaintiffs’ complaint without prejudice.
On Oct. 22, the plaintiffs replied to the new matter, denying it as conclusions of law to which no response was required.
UPDATE
In its own answer with new matter filed on Nov. 14, D.L. Schwarz, Inc. also availed itself of liability in the instant case.
“Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The condition complained of in plaintiffs’ complaint was known, open and obvious. The plaintiff acted negligently by failing to look where he was walking, and otherwise failing to keep a proper lookout for the existing conditions on the premises. Any injuries sustained by the plaintiff were caused by the negligence of the plaintiff. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred or limited by plaintiff's negligence and the terms of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act,” their answer stated.
“To the extent plaintiffs’ damages were proximately caused or contributed to by parties, persons, and/or entities other than this defendant, the plaintiffs’ claims are barred or limited. To the extent plaintiffs’ damages were proximately caused or contributed to by superseding and intervening causes, then plaintiffs’ claims are barred or limited. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred or limited by any releases or agreements/documents signed by or for the plaintiffs. To the extent waiver or estoppel applies, plaintiffs’ claims are barred or limited. To the extent the plaintiffs failed to mitigate their damages, then plaintiffs’ claims are barred or limited. To the extent plaintiff acted recklessly in causing the accident, the plaintiffs’ claims are barred.”
D.L. Schwarz, Inc. further denied Pool City, Inc.’s cross-claims as conclusions of law to which no responses are required.
For counts of negligence and loss of consortium, the plaintiffs are seeking damages in excess of the jurisdictional limits of compulsory arbitration, plus costs, interest, punitive damages and such other and further relief as this Honorable Court may deem just and equitable.
The plaintiffs are represented by Karen L. Hughes of Woomer & Talarico, in Pittsburgh.
The defendants are represented by Paul R. Robinson of Meyer Darragh Buckler Bebenek & Eck, and Jeffrey C. Catanzarite of Summers McDonnell Hudock Guthrie & Rauch, both also in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-22-011736
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com