MEDIA – Defendants accused of negligently and intentionally assaulting a Chester man at George W. Hill Correctional Facility in Thornton have denied that they used any such assault tactics or unreasonable force.
Tayvon Starkey of Chester first filed suit in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas on Oct. 19 versus GEO Secure Services, LLC of Boca Raton, Fla., plus Corrections Officers Trokon Jones and John Doe, both of Thornton.
“On Nov. 13, 2020, plaintiff was an inmate at the prison and was housed in Unit 10C, Cell 107. On Nov. 13, 2020, defendants CO Jones and CO Doe, who at that time were acting as agents, servants, workmen and/or employees of defendant GEO, did carelessly and negligently cause injury to plaintiff’s hand, wrist and arm, by forcefully attempting to close the meal tray slot in the cell door (also known as the bean slot) while plaintiff had his arm in the meal tray slot. At that time, defendant CO Jones carelessly and negligently pushed hard on the slot cover that opens and closes the meal tray slot. At the time that he was pushing on said door, plaintiff’s arm was still in the meal tray slot, causing severe personal injuries,” the suit said.
“Plaintiff filed several grievances and requests for medical treatment concerning this incident. Photographs of the injury were taken by Sergeant Coleman in the medical unit of the prison and the entire incident is captured on closed circuit video recording. The physical harm suffered by plaintiff committed by defendants, each of them by and through their agents, servants workmen and/or employees as aforesaid, was in no manner whatsoever due to any act or failure to act upon the part of the plaintiff.”
The suit continued that the damages were caused by “the carelessness and negligence of all defendants.”
“As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ acts, each of them, plaintiff sustained injury to his hand, wrist and arm. He suffered scarring and other permanent damage to his left pinky finger. He suffered a severe shock to his nerves and nervous system, all of which did and may and probably will in the future, continue to cause him great physical pain and mental anguish, and these injuries may and probably will be permanent in effect,” the suit stated.
“Further, by reason of the aforesaid, plaintiff has been obliged to expend various sums of money for medicine and medical attention in about endeavoring to treat and cure himself of his said injuries, and will be obliged to spend additional sums of money for the same purposes in the future, all to his great financial damage and loss. As a further result of the accident and the injuries sustained therein, plaintiff has and/or may suffer an impairment of his earnings and earning capacity and power. As a direct result of the incident aforesaid, plaintiff has and may hereinafter incur additional financial and/or medical expenses or losses. Plaintiff avers that his injuries and damages sustained were caused solely as a direct result of the carelessness and negligence of all defendants.”
UPDATE
An answer from the defendants filed on Dec. 8, denied that any unreasonable force was used and that the incident was merely the result of the plaintiff’s own actions, in addition to providing new matter.
“Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. The provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act apply in this case to limit or bar plaintiff’s cause of action. Plaintiff’s cause of action is barred by the contributory negligence of the plaintiff. Plaintiff assumed the risk of his own conduct. Plaintiff’s injuries, if any, were caused by the negligence and/or liability producing acts or omissions of parties or other entities over whom answering defendants neither had control nor the ability to control,” the new matter stated, in part.
“Plaintiff’s claims for relief are barred and/or limited as plaintiff’s own actions and/or inactions were the cause-in-fact and/or legal cause of his alleged damages. The acts and/or omissions of entities and/or individuals other than answering defendants were the cause-in-fact and/or legal cause of plaintiff’s alleged injuries. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate his damages. Plaintiff’s claims for relief are barred and/or limited by facts and defenses which will become apparent during discovery and answering defendants specifically reserve the right to amend this new matter prior to trial. Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrines of waiver, laches and/or estoppel. Plaintiff’s claims may be barred in whole or in part by the applicable statute of limitations. Answering defendants have breached no duty of care owed to the plaintiff, if any.”
A response filing from the plaintiff submitted the same day dismissed the defendants’ assertions as merely conclusions of law to which no responsive pleadings are required.
For counts of negligence and intentional assault and battery, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages from the defendants not in excess of $50,000, plus costs.
The plaintiff is represented by James D. Famiglio of James D. Famiglio, P.C., in Media.
The defendants are represented by Matthew H. Fry of Burns White, in West Conshohocken.
Delaware County Court of Common Pleas case CV-2022-007724
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com