Quantcast

Sinking Spring woman rejects Lancaster School of Cosmetology's attempt to deny liability in her case

PENNSYLVANIA RECORD

Sunday, December 22, 2024

Sinking Spring woman rejects Lancaster School of Cosmetology's attempt to deny liability in her case

Schools
Chaderankin

Rankin | Rankin & Gregory

LANCASTER – A Sinking Spring woman has reiterated that negligence on the part of the Lancaster School of Cosmetology and its owners resulted in her falling over an unguarded stairwell and suffering severe injuries to her face, ankle and shoulder.

Susan B. Makowski and Carl F. Makowski of Sinking Spring first filed suit in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas on Oct. 4 versus Deborah A. Dunn, Gerard E. Geist and Geist-Dunn Corporation (doing business as “Lancaster School of Cosmetology & Therapeutic Bodywork”), all of Lancaster.

“At all times relevant hereto: Dunn and Geist owned the property; Lancaster School of Cosmetology operated from a building situated on the property; The property had a parking lot for students and staff parking while attending Lancaster School of Cosmetology; and Dunn, Geist and Lancaster School of Cosmetology were responsible for the inspection, maintenance and/or repair of the property, including the building thereon,” the suit said.

“On and prior to Sept. 8, 2021, an exterior stairwell located at the rear of the building on the property – and within the foreseeable walking path of students and staff entering the building – was in a defective state, because it did not have guardrails to prevent pedestrians from walking or falling over the edge of the stairwell. At some time prior to Sept. 8, 2021, the aforementioned exterior stairwell located at the rear of the building on the property did have guardrails, which, because of neglect and/or lack of repair, were permitted to be removed or altered to the point that they provided no fall protection to pedestrians.”

The suit added that the defendants were made aware of the need for guardrails on the outside stairwells, but did not replace them.

“On and before Sept. 8, 2021, plaintiff Susan Makowski was a student in the Massage Therapy program at Lancaster School of Cosmetology. On Sept. 8, 2021, Makowski arrived at Lancaster School of Cosmetology at approximately 8:15 p.m. and was on the defendants’ property as an invitee. It was dark when Makowski arrived at the property on Sept. 8, 2021,” the suit stated.

“Makowski parked her car along the left side of the parking lot to the rear of the building on the property – and area she had never parked in before Sept. 8, 2021 – and began to walk to the student entrance of the building located at the rear of the building on the property. As the parking lot was dark and not adequately lit, Makowski walked close to the building. As she did, she suddenly and unexpectedly walked over the edge of the unguarded stairwell, striking the right side of her body and face on the concrete steps. On Sept. 8, 2021, Makowski did not know of the existence of the unguarded stairwell, and did not see it because it was dark and the area was not adequately lit.”

Among her litany of her injuries, Makowski suffered dislocation of and tears to her right shoulder, a broken jaw in two places, a broken nose, several broken teeth, a sprained right ankle and a series of other injuries.

An answer from the defense on Dec. 14 countered that the plaintiff’s claims are conclusions of law to which no official response was required and any facts which were alleged were denied, under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e).

“Plaintiffs’ claims or any amendment thereto, are barred or limited by the applicable statute of limitations. To the extent that there was a dangerous condition on property owned or managed by defendants, defendants were not on actual or constructive notice of that condition. Upon information and belief, the injuries of which plaintiff Neely Latham complains, pre-existed the date of the alleged incident. Defendants plead and preserve the defense of comparative negligence,” the answer’s new matter stated.

UPDATE

The plaintiff replied with a complete denial of the defense’s new matter on Dec. 19.

“[These allegations are] denied generally per Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029,” the plaintiff’s response stated.

For counts of negligence and loss of consortium, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of $50,000, plus costs and delay damages as allowed by law.

The plaintiffs are represented by Chad E. Rankin of Rankin & Gregory, in Lancaster.

The defendants are represented by John F. Yaninek of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, in Camp Hill.

Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas case CI-22-06099

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

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

More News