PITTSBURGH – One defendant has been dismissed from a Western Pennsylvania woman’s negligence lawsuit against Rite Aid, brought after she fell on uncleaned salt and snow in the wake of a snowstorm and broke her right ankle last January.
Keyva Solomon of Rochester first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Sept. 20 versus Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid of Pennsylvania, Inc. of Imperial, plus Realty Income Pennsylvania Properties Trust of Escondido, Calif.
“On or about Jan. 19, 2022, at approximately 1 p.m., plaintiff was a business invitee, licensee and/or otherwise legally on defendants’ premises. At all times relevant hereto, defendants, individually, jointly and/or through its agents, servants, franchisees, workmen and/or employees, had a duty to keep and maintain the aforesaid premises in a reasonably safe condition for those persons lawfully thereon, including plaintiff,” the suit said.
“On or about Jan. 19, 2022, while on defendants’ premises, plaintiff was caused to slip and fall on a dangerous condition consisting of uncleansed salt/snow on the floor due to a recent snowstorm which was located few steps inside front door on the premises, causing serious and permanent personal injuries. At or about the same date, time and place in question, and for some period of time prior thereto, defendants, acting individually, jointly and/or by and through their agents, servants, franchisees, workmen and/or employees, knew or under the reasonable exercise of diligence should have known of the dangerous condition and negligently and/or carelessly allowed and permitted dangerous and unsafe condition of uncleansed salt/snow on the floor to exist.”
The suit added the defendants failed to warn customers of the condition in question, failed to exercise the proper care, custody and control over the aforesaid premises, failed to repair known and/or unknown defects and failed to design its premises in a way which would have been safe for customers.
“As a direct and consequential result of the negligent and/or careless conduct of the defendants, described above, the plaintiff suffered various serious personal injuries, including but not limited to right ankle fracture. As a result of these injuries, all or some of which may permanent in nature, and all of which are to plaintiff’s great financial detriment and loss; plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer great anguish, pain, sickness, agony, and embarrassment,” the suit stated.
“As a result of defendant’s negligence and carelessness, as aforesaid, plaintiff has suffered permanent scarring and disfigurement. As an additional result of the carelessness and negligence of defendant, plaintiff has suffered emotional injuries, along with the physical injuries suffered. As a further result of plaintiff’s injuries, plaintiff suffered a loss of earnings and/or earning capacity, all to plaintiff’s further loss and detriment. Furthermore, in addition to all the injuries and losses suffered by plaintiff, plaintiff has also incurred or will incur medical, rehabilitative and other related expenses.”
In a Dec. 13 answer to the case (along with new matter), Rite Aid put forth a complete denial of the events presented and the allegations that it was negligent.
“The Rite Aid defendants deny they owed a duty of the type alleged by plaintiff, deny that they breached any duty owed to the plaintiff and deny that they were the legal proximate cause of any injuries and damages of which plaintiff complains. The Rite Aid defendants aver, to the extent revealed by discovery or testimony rendered at trial, that the injuries and/or medical conditions of which plaintiff complains pre-existed and/or unrelated to the accident at issue. To the extent revealed by discovery or testimony rendered at trial, the Rite Aid defendants set forth the plaintiff’s failure to mitigate damages as a bar to plaintiff’s claim. The Rite Aid defendants set forth the plaintiff’s own comparative negligence as a bar to and/or in diminution of the plaintiff’s claim for damages,” the new matter stated.
“The Rite Aid defendants set forth all affirmative defenses available to them under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1030(a), including but not limited to, comparative negligence under the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Statute. Plaintiffs’ claims may be barred and/or limited by the affirmative defenses of releases, laches, estoppel, waiver and any other affirmative defenses enumerated under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1030. The Rite Aid defendants set forth any applicable statute of limitations as a bar to plaintiff’s claims herein. To the extent revealed by discovery or testimony rendered at trial, the Rite Aid defendants set forth as an affirmative defense the doctrine of intervening and superseding causes of the plaintiff’s asserted fall. The Pennsylvania Fair Share Act is set forth as an affirmative defense.”
On Dec. 14, counsel for the plaintiff rejected the defense’s new matter.
“The allegations in these paragraphs are legal conclusions to which no response is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent the allegations are deemed to be factual, those allegations are specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. To the extent these allegations attempt to interpret, discuss or characterize Pennsylvania substantive or statutory law, the law speaks for itself and any interpretation, discussion or characterization of the law by defendants is specifically denied,” the plaintiff’s response stated.
UPDATE
On Dec. 28, the parties agreed to dismiss Realty Income Pennsylvania Properties Trust from the suit.
“The parties, by and through their counsel, stipulate and agree to the voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice as to defendant, Realty Income Pennsylvania Properties Trust. The parties agree that this stipulation is not an admission of liability with respect to any cause of action alleged in plaintiffs’ complaint against the remaining defendants, Rite Aid of Pennsylvania, LLC and Rite Aid of Pennsylvania, Inc. Plaintiff and remaining defendants further stipulate that this voluntary dismissal, without prejudice, as to the identified defendant is not a dismissal or waiver of any claim that plaintiff has filed against the remaining defendants,” the stipulation stated.
For multiple counts of negligence, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of $75,000, plus all costs and other relief this court deems just.
The plaintiff is represented by Marc I. Simon, Ryan M. Flaherty, Amanda L. Nese, Ashley Henkle and Jessica Thimons of Simon & Simon, in Pittsburgh.
The defendants are represented by George N. Stewart and Kerri Shimborske-Abel of Zimmer Kunz, also in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-22-011827
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com