PITTSBURGH – A Pittsburgh couple who claimed that a wooden board in the middle of the floor caused the husband-plaintiff to fall inside a pool table store and suffer a litany of serious injuries, have settled their case.
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.
Pool City Inc. filed a motion to compel cooperation from the plaintiffs with its discovery inquiries on Dec. 7.
“This defendant served the plaintiffs with interrogatories and request for production of documents on Oct. 13, 2022. On Nov. 16, 2022, the plaintiffs were advised that their answers and response to this defendant’s interrogatories and request for production of documents were overdue. To date, the defendant has not received the plaintiffs’ outstanding and overdue discovery responses. The defendant is prejudiced by the plaintiffs’ failure to provide timely discovery responses in this case,” the motion stated.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas Judge Philip A. Ignelzi granted the motion on Dec. 12 and the respondent was to produce answers to the discovery inquiries within 30 days.
UPDATE
On March 29, plaintiff counsel filed a praecipe to settle and discontinue the case. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed.
“Kindly mark the above-captioned case settled and discontinued,” the praecipe stated.
The plaintiffs were represented by Emerald N. Williams of Woomer & Talarico, in Pittsburgh.
The defendants were 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