PITTSBURGH – A real estate entity has denied responsibility for claims made by a Pittsburgh man, who alleged that negligence its part and others led to a 2019 incident where his four-year-old son fell through a window screen on the third story of their residence.
Rashuan Butler (individually and as parent and natural guardian of C.F., a minor) of Pittsburgh first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on May 23 versus DBC Real Estate Management, LLC, DBC Alcoma LP and DBC Alcoma Development, LLC of Warrendale, LDK Development, Inc. (doing business as “Alcoma On The Green”) of Monroeville and LDK Development Inc. (doing business as “Alcoma On The Green Estates”), of Pittsburgh.
“At all times relevant, defendants owned, possessed, operated, maintained and/or controlled the property located at 225 Alcoma Boulevard, Apartment 318, Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania 15235. On July 3, 2019, minor plaintiff was lawfully on the premises sitting on top of a couch and went to reach for an item positioned on the windowsill,” the suit stated.
“As minor plaintiff was near the at-issue window, the screen popped out of its casing causing minor plaintiff to fall from the third-floor window to the ground below. Minor plaintiff was taken by ambulance to Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, where he received treatment for his injuries.”
The suit added that the child, C.F., suffered severe injuries in the three-story fall.
“As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness and recklessness of defendants, minor plaintiff sustained the following injuries, some of which may be permanent: A) Multiple facial fractures including displaced, angulated fractures of bilateral condylar processes of mandible, non-displaced left paramedian mandible fracture; B) Fractured left forearm; C) Hematoma; D) Bruising and swelling to the face; E) Bruises, contusions and other injuries in or about nerves, muscles, bones, tendons, ligaments, tissues and vessels of the body; and F) Nervousness, emotional tension, anxiety and depression,” the suit said.
“As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness and recklessness of defendants, minor plaintiff has sustained the following damages, some of which may be continuing: A) Great pain, suffering, inconvenience, embarrassment, mental anguish, and emotional and psychological trauma; B) He will be required to expend large sums of money for medical treatment and care, hospitalization, medical supplies, surgical appliances, rehabilitation and therapeutic treatment, medicines, and other attendant services; C) Lost earnings, and minor plaintiff's earning capacity has been reduced and may be permanently impaired; D) Inability to enjoy various pleasures of life that were previously enjoyed and E) Loss and impairment of general health, strength, and vitality.”
Counsel for the plaintiff and for the DBC defendants mutually filed a stipulation in order to voluntarily dismiss the punitive damages claim without prejudice, on June 27.
UPDATE
On July 18, the DBC defendant filed a praecipe for a writ of summons to join an additional defendant in the matter, Cathleen Ford.
The following day, the DBC defendants filed an answer, new matter and cross-claims in the case. The answer denied liability on behalf of the DBC defendants, and instead pointed it at LDK Development, Inc.
“Pursuant to stipulation of the parties, all claims for punitive damages are stricken from the complaint without prejudice. Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a cause of action against these defendants upon which relief may be granted. These defendants set forth the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Statute as a bar to plaintiff’s claims and/or in diminution of plaintiffs’ claims to the extent of plaintiff’s negligence. These defendants set forth plaintiffs’ assumption of the risk as a bar to plaintiffs’ claims. To the extent that discovery should so reveal, then plaintiffs’ claims are barred since minor plaintiff’s claimed injuries pre-existed the alleged accident in question in whole or in part. To the extent that discovery should so reveal, then minor plaintiff’s injuries, damages or harm, if any, were caused by other individuals or entities over whom these defendants exercised no control and for which these defendants may not be held liable,” per the DBC defendants’ new matter.
“These defendants set forth the doctrines of superseding and/or intervening cause as a bar to plaintiffs’ claims. To the extent that discovery should so reveal, then plaintiffs’ claims are barred because the area where minor plaintiff allegedly was injured was in compliance with all local, state and national ordinances, codes and other laws. To the extent that discovery should so reveal, then plaintiffs’ claims are barred by all applicable statute of limitations. To the extent that discovery should so reveal, then plaintiffs’ claims are barred in their entirety because minor plaintiff was a trespasser at the time of the accident. To the extent that investigation and discovery should so reveal, then plaintiffs’ claims are barred in their entirety since these defendants did not own, maintain, or in any manner have responsibility for the location of plaintiff’s alleged fall.”
For five counts of negligence, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages in excess of the jurisdictional limits of compulsory arbitration, together with court costs, interest and such other and further relief as this Honorable Court may deem just and equitable.
The plaintiff is represented by Ian M. Watt of Friday & Cox, in Pittsburgh.
The DBC defendants are represented by Christopher T. Yoskosky of Zimmer Kunz, also in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-23-006517
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com