WILLIAMSPORT – A Lycoming County woman has reiterated claims that while visiting a Pennsylvania State Police barracks, she encountered a defective condition in the building’s front steps, leading her to fall and break her left leg and left shoulder.
Karen M. Gaines of Muncy first filed suit in the Lycoming County Court of Common Pleas on June 28 versus Pennsylvania State Police Troop F of Montoursville and the Pennsylvania Department of General Services, of Harrisburg.
“On Sept. 28, 2021, at approximately 11:30 a.m., plaintiff Karen M. Gaines was a public invitee of Pennsylvania State Police Troop F at 899 Cherry Street, Montoursville, Pennsylvania, as she entered and exited said premises for the purpose of inquiring into whether there was a Notary present. At approximately 11:30 a.m. on Sept. 28, 2021, plaintiff Karen M. Gaines exited the front entranceway of 899 Cherry Street, Montoursville, Pennsylvania, traversed the top landing area of the front steps, stepped onto the front steps falling and ending up at the bottom of the steps resulting in serious and permanent injuries as set forth below,” the suit said.
“Immediately after the fall, several Pennsylvania State Police persons and/or employees came to the scene of the fall and were immediately aware of plaintiff’s fall and the condition surrounding it. Therefore, Defendants had actual notice of this incident. On June 21, 2023, Robert B. Elion, attorney for plaintiff, sent the Pennsylvania State Police Troop F and the Office of Attorney General a notice pursuant to Section 5522 of the Judiciary and Judicial Procedure Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 5522(a).”
The suit added that some time prior to the within incident, the defendants were aware or should have been aware that the subject matter front railing did not meet code standards, was substandard and caused a dangerous condition – which was that the width between the two railings was in excess of six feet and did not have a middle railing.
“As a result of the above-mentioned incident, plaintiff Karen M. Gaines sustained injuries which include, but are not limited to, multiple fractures in her left leg and fracture of her left shoulder. As a result of the above-mentioned incident, plaintiff Karen M. Gaines required medical treatment, including surgery to her leg and shoulder, hospitalization, admission into a rehab facility, physical therapy, diagnostic tests, mobility restraints and pain medications and may need additional medical treatment in the future,” the suit stated.
“As a result of the above-mentioned incident, plaintiff Karen M. Gaines has incurred in the past and may incur in the future medical expenses, suffered permanent disfigurement, has been and may in the future be unable to attend to her usual daily activities, has suffered severe trauma, mental anguish, embarrassment, humiliation and may continue to suffer the same for an indefinite time in the future and has undergone and will continue to undergo prolonged severe pain and suffering, which may continue for an indefinite time into the future and may be permanent.”
UPDATE
On Aug. 7, the defendants filed an answer and new matter in the action, which generally denied the plaintiff’s allegations.
“The Commonwealth defendants are immune from suit, and therefore this action is barred. This action is not within any of the exceptions to immunity as set forth in 42 Pa.C.S. Section 8522, and therefore is barred. The Commonwealth defendants did not have notice, written or otherwise, of the allegedly dangerous condition, or in the alternative, if said notice was received, it was not received in sufficient time prior to the alleged accident for the Commonwealth defendants to have corrected or to have warned plaintiffs of the allegedly dangerous condition. The alleged dangerous condition(s) does not ‘derive, originate from, or have as its source Commonwealth realty,’ and therefore, the Commonwealth defendants are immune from suit. The Commonwealth defendants avers that recovery may not be had against it for alleged failures to redesign, change or update designs of Commonwealth realty, Commonwealth highways, rights-of-ways or fixtures or structures affixed thereto or located thereon,” per the new matter, in part.
“The Commonwealth defendants are not liable for negligence related to discretionary acts, and therefore this action is barred. All affirmative defenses under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1030 are asserted and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. If the incident occurred as alleged, an alleged condition of Commonwealth-owned realty, did not cause the accident or the damages, injuries and/or losses complained of. Should liability be found on the part of the Commonwealth defendants, the amounts and types of damages recoverable in the present action are limited and controlled by 42 Pa.C.S. Section 8528. The Commonwealth defendants are immune in this matter.”
That same day, the plaintiff replied to the defendants’ new matter and denied it as conclusions of law to which no response was necessary – and if a response were necessary, the allegations would be denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e).
For two counts of negligence, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of the jurisdictional requirements for compulsory arbitration.
The plaintiff is represented by Robert B. Elion of Elion Grieco & Shipman, in Williamsport.
The defendants are represented by Christina A. Israel of the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office, in Harrisburg.
Lycoming County Court of Common Pleas case CV-2023-00699
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com