PITTSBURGH – A woman injured in a Pittsburgh hotel ballroom while watching her daughter’s dance recital, insists that a negligent makeshift table setup used for the event was the proximate cause of her injuries.
Nicole Feldhues and William Feldhues of Coraopolis first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on March 28 versus Precision Arts Challenge, Inc. of Wilmington, Ill. and Pit Hotel Partners, LLC (doing business as “DoubleTree by Hilton, Pittsburgh – Greentree”) of Pittsburgh.
“Plaintiff Nicole Feldhues was an invitee at the dance competition hosted by defendant Precision Arts Challenge, Inc. Plaintiff Nicole Feldhues’s daughter was a participant in the dance competition, and plaintiff attended the event to watch her daughter’s performance. The dance competition was held in the ballroom at defendant DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel. The hotel ballroom was completely flat, with no existing elevated surface to set up computer and audiovisual equipment,” the suit said.
“Defendant Precision Arts Challenge, Inc. and their employees erected a makeshift equipment setup in the back of the ballroom where the event was held. The makeshift setup consisted of several banquet tables arranged to form a platform, with additional tables stacked on top of the banquet tables. The tables stacked on top of the banquet tables had large and heavy computer and audiovisual equipment set up on top of them. Several personnel stood atop the makeshift table setup, on the banquet tables that formed the ‘platform’ to operate the computer/audiovisual equipment.”
The suit added the DoubleTree hotel manager commented that the setup was “dangerous and potentially hazardous”, but never instructed for it to be taken down – and further, that defendant Precision Arts Challenge, Inc.’s employees “did not make any effort to move or stabilize the table setup upon hearing the hotel manager’s concerns.”
“Defendant DoubleTree Hotel employees did not make any effort to move or stabilize the table setup upon hearing the hotel manager’s concerns. The aforementioned elevated recording and camera table was set up directly behind audience members, including plaintiff Nicole Feldhues. During the recital, plaintiff Nicole Feldhues was standing behind the last row of chairs, directly in front of the makeshift elevated recording and camera table. There was no barricade separating this makeshift setup from audience seating,” the suit stated.
“The makeshift setup was in very close proximity to where plaintiff Nicole Feldhues and other audience members were standing and seated. Suddenly, and without warning, the makeshift table setup toppled over and the heavy equipment stacked on the table came crashing down directly onto plaintiff Nicole Feldhues with great force, such that she was knocked forward over the chairs in front of her. After the incident, a witness overheard staff of either defendant Precision Arts Challenge, Inc. or defendant DoubleTree Hotel state ‘we never used this setup before.’ Plaintiff Nicole Feldhues was transported via ambulance to a nearby hospital to be treated for her injuries.”
The complaint continued that plaintiff Nicole Feldhues suffered headaches, numbness and tingling in extremities, cervical strain, cervical spasm, trapezius strain, trapezius spasm, narrowing of the spine, neck pain, upper back pain and shoulder pain.
Precision Arts Challenge, Inc. filed an answer, new matter and cross-claim on June 6, which denied liability for the subject plaintiff’s injuries.
“Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted against PAC. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in total by plaintiff Nicole Feldhues’ contributory negligence, comparative negligence or both. Plaintiffs’ recovery, if any, is limited to the extent that plaintiffs failed or will fail to mitigate their damages. Any claims against PAC are barred by the statute of limitations and the doctrines of laches, waiver, release, accord, satisfaction and estoppel. PAC did not contribute to the injuries or damages complained of by plaintiffs,” the defendant’s new matter stated, in part.
“PAC believes, and therefore avers, that the facilities, real property, or personal property at issue in this matter is owned, controlled, possessed, managed, or maintained by persons, entities, or parties other than PAC, over whom PAC has no control or responsibility. PAC believes, and therefore avers, that any facilities, real property, or personal property at issue in this matter was staged, assembled, constructed, or set-up by persons, entities, or parties other than PAC, over whom PAC has no control or responsibility. PAC believes, and therefore avers, that any facilities, real property, or personal property at issue in this matter that was staged, assembled, constructed, or set-up are owned, controlled, possessed, managed, or maintained by persons, entities, or parties other than PAC, over whom PAC has no control or responsibility.”
The filing continued that the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries and damages were caused by the actions of third-parties, over whom PAC had no control or responsibility, such as its co-defendant PIT Hotel Partners, LLC (doing business as “DoubleTree by Hilton, Pittsburgh – Greentree”).
Plaintiff counsel filed a 10-day letter on June 29, seeking a default judgment against defendant PIT Hotel Partners, LLC for their lack of response to the litigation to this point.
“You are in default because you have failed to enter a written appearance personally or by attorney and file in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. Unless you act within 10 days from the date of this notice, a judgment may be entered against you without a hearing and you may lose your property or other important rights,” the letter stated.
UPDATE
On July 14, the plaintiff replied to the defense’s new matter and denied it in its entirety.
“The averments contained in Paragraphs 36-69 of defendant’s new matter contain conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is necessary, said averments are hereby specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at trial,” according to the reply.
The plaintiff further countered that the date of loss is May 1, 2021 and that the statute of limitations for personal injury cases in Pennsylvania is two years.
For counts of negligence and loss of consortium, the plaintiffs are seeking damages in excess of the applicable arbitration limits, exclusive of costs and interests.
The plaintiffs are represented by George M. Kontos and Katie A. Killion of Kontos Mengine Killion & Hassen, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Dennis A. Watson and Devon F. Ferris of Dickie McCamey & Chilcote, in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-23-004429
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com