Quantcast

PENNSYLVANIA RECORD

Thursday, October 3, 2024

Corrections defendants say they are not at fault for inmate's fall in cell with wet floor

State Court
Matthewhfry

Fry | Burns White

MEDIA – Defendants accused of negligently allowing an inmate’s cell to flood with water, which caused him to fall, knock himself unconscious and lose two of his teeth at George W. Hill Correctional Facility in Thornton, have denied responsibility for the incident.

Nycere Green of Wilmington, Del. 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 Officer John Doe, both of Thornton.

“On Dec. 31, 2020, plaintiff was an inmate at the prison. On Dec. 31, 2020, defendants each of them individually and/or jointly and/or by their agents, servants workmen and/or employees did own lease occupy operate maintain and/or control the prison and in particular the cell in which plaintiff was housed at the time, which is believed to have been Unit SMYA Cell 204. On Dec. 31, 2020, plaintiff was an inmate at the prison in particular, upon information and belief, was being held on Unit SMYA Cell 204,” the suit said.

“On that date, plaintiff woke up and noticed that his cell was completely flooded. Plaintiff continually knocked on the cell door for about an hour and finally a Corrections Officer came to the cell door and informed plaintiff that someone would be right back with items for him to clean up the water. After several hours, no one on defendant GEO’s behalf appeared at plaintiff’s cell, nor provided items such as a mop or rags to clean up the water.”

The suit continued that staff at the prison were under a duty to inspect the grounds, performing tasks including but not limited to, inspecting the plumbing for the toilet and sink of the plaintiff’s cell – and that the failure to do so allowed water and/or another liquid substance to accumulate on the floor of the plaintiff’s cell, creating a highly dangerous and defective condition.

“Defendants did negligently, carelessly and recklessly maintain the aforesaid prison, to wit, the toilet and/or sink and its corresponding plumbing in plaintiff’s cell to become and remain in a highly dangerous and defective condition which led to water accumulation on the floor, which caused plaintiff to slip stumble and fall to the floor rendering himself unconscious. Plaintiff was later discovered by another inmate who was out of his cell for recreation time, and noticed the plaintiff unconscious on the floor of his cell,” the suit stated.

“As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ negligence, the plaintiff struck his face and/or head on the sink or the toilet of his cell, rendering him unconscious; one tooth was completely knocked out and another tooth was severely damaged. He was treated by EMTs and taken by ambulance to Crozer Chester Medical Center. He suffered bruises, contusions and a tearing and stretching to various muscles, ligaments, tendons, vascular nerve and other soft tissues in and about the area of his head, face, neck, shoulders, back and arms, and if at the time of the accident, plaintiff was suffering from any pre-existing condition or ailment such were asymptomatic, and as a result of the trauma such condition or ailment was activated, aggravated, exacerbated and made symptomatic. He suffered a severe shock to his nerves and nervous system, all of which did 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. As a result of the trauma, plaintiff lost a second tooth which could not be saved by medical personnel. This tooth was extracted on or about Jan. 4, 2021.”

UPDATE

The defendants answered the complaint on Dec. 8 and denied that they committed any negligence 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. 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 new matter stated, in part.

“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. Answering defendants are entitled to immunity from this action by the Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act.”

The answer continued that the water on the floor was an open and obvious danger known to plaintiff before this incident, and the plaintiff assumed the risk by knowingly walking on a floor he knew was wet before this incident occurred.

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, careless and recklessness, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages from the defendants not in excess of $50,000, plus attorney’s fees and 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-2022-007726

From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

More News