YORK – A Maryland woman continues to argue that the organizing companies of the York State Fair were negligent in failing to prevent her injuries, when a passing thunderstorm led her to be hit by a metal object while she was attending the fair.
Jarielly Rivera of Brooklyn, Md. first filed suit in the York County Court of Common Pleas on April 17 versus York County Agricultural Society (doing business as “York State Fair” and “York Expo Center”) of York and Strates Shows, Inc. of Orlando, Fla.
“On or about July 28, 2021, a sunny day, the plaintiff, along with other family members, was enjoying the York State Fair in York County, PA, where they had arrived at approximately 3 p.m. On July 28, 2021, at approximately 4:45 p.m., the plaintiff was by the Ferris wheel when it began to drizzle, which was followed immediately by a pouring rain with hail and severe winds. The force of the impending storm caused tents and awnings to collapse, blow over and blow about the fairgrounds area,” the suit said.
“While attempting to get to a safe, covered location for herself and other family members, including small children in strollers, the plaintiff and other members of her family were struck by a large metal object. As a result of the large metal object striking the plaintiff, she sustained serious personal injuries, including but not limited to, injuries to her head, shoulder, knees, soft tissue injuries and various other ills and injuries. As a result of this incident, plaintiff has incurred medical expenses in the treatment, medication, and other miscellaneous expenses for her injuries and may continue to incur medical expenses in the future treatment of her injuries.”
The suit added that the defendants were collectively negligent in failing to warn the fair guests of the approaching thunderstorm, failing to provide a safe environment and failing to ensure that property objects at the fair, including concession stands, were set up and secure in a safe and secure manner so as to avoid harm in any way to the general public, among other instances of negligence.
The York County Agricultural Society and Strates, Inc. then removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on April 27.
But on May 9, plaintiff counsel filed a motion to have the case remanded to the York County Court of Common Pleas, arguing an improper removal had taken place – leading U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Judge Yvette Kane to issue an order on May 10 to remand the case to York County.
On June 7, Strates Shows, Inc. filed an answer which denied the plaintiff’s allegations, alongside new matter and a cross-claim to its co-defendant, the York County Agricultural Society.
“Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action for which relief may be granted. Plaintiff has have failed to mitigate her damages. Plaintiff’s claims for damages are excessive and unsupported and, therefore, must be barred or reduced. Plaintiff’s alleged injuries were caused by prior and/or subsequent medical conditions and/or are unrelated to the incident, which is the subject matter of this complaint. The negligence of plaintiff either bars or limits her right to recover her claims based upon the extent of his negligence by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. Plaintiff’s alleged damages, if any, were the result of an unavoidable accident or sudden emergency,” the answer’s new matter stated.
“Plaintiff’s alleged damages were proximately caused, in whole or in part, by the fault of third-parties, including plaintiff, for whom answering defendant is not legally responsible. This Honorable Court lacks jurisdiction over answering defendant. No omissions or conduct on the part of answering defendant contributed to plaintiff’s damages, if any. It is further specifically denied that any act or omission on the part of answering defendant was the sole or proximate cause of plaintiff’s alleged damages and injuries. At all times material hereto, the premises as described in the complaint was maintained in a reasonable and prudent manner, subject to regular inspection; was free of defects and hazardous conditions; was without a condition existing that required warning to those lawfully and carefully proceeding on the premises; was in a manner fit and appropriate for the purposes intended and was in compliance with all applicable codes, regulations, ordinances and statutes, and that answering defendant acted in accordance with the applicable state and federal laws and complied with all applicable codes, regulations and standards. At all times relevant herein, answering defendant acted in accordance with the applicable state and federal laws.”
On June 9, the plaintiff replied to the answer and matter, denying it as conclusions of law to which no official response was required – and that to the extent that an answer was required, the averments of those paragraphs were denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e).
UPDATE
The York County Agricultural Society also filed an answer with new matter in the action on Aug. 2, which denied the plaintiff’s substantive allegations.
“To the extent justified by the evidence developed in discovery or the testimony at the time of trial, answering defendant avers that plaintiff has failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted. To the extent justified by the evidence developed in discovery or the testimony at the time of trial, any injuries and/or damages alleged by plaintiff was the result of superseding, intervening, and/or independent causes over which answering defendant had no control and in no way participated. To the extent justified by the evidence developed in discovery or the testimony at the time of trial, answering defendant raises all affirmative defenses set forth in Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1030 to plaintiff’s claims, including the legal doctrines of payment, accord and satisfaction, release, waiver, estoppel, set-off, immunity and the statute of limitations,” the new matter stated, in part.
“To the extent justified by evidence developed in discovery or the testimony at the time of trial, answering defendant pleads the voluntary assumption of the risk of plaintiff as a complete or partial bar to any recovery by plaintiff in this action. To the extent justified by the evidence developed in discovery or the testimony at the time of trial, answering defendant pleads the contributory, causal negligence of plaintiff and the provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act as a complete or partial bar to any recovery by the plaintiff in this action. To the extent justified by the evidence developed in discovery or the testimony at the time of trial, answering defendant avers that the injuries and damages alleged by plaintiff were the result of pre-existing conditions unrelated to this accident and/or occurrence.”
Furthermore the York County Agricultural Society also redirected liability to its co-defendant, Strates Shows, Inc., through cross-claims for breach of contract, contribution and indemnity.
In a reply to the new matter on Aug. 3, the plaintiff denied the new matter pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e) and cross-claims in their entirety.
For multiple counts of negligence, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages in an amount in excess of the arbitration threshold, together with interest, costs of suit and delay damages
The plaintiff is represented by Evan J. Kline III of Katherman Briggs & Greenberg, in York.
The defendants are represented by John W. Croumer of Post & Schell in Lancaster, plus Maureen E. Daley and Joseph F. Longo of Rawle & Henderson, in Philadelphia.
York County Court of Common Pleas case 2023-SU-000715
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 1:23-cv-00702
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com