PHILADELPHIA – For the second time, a Bucks County couple’s litigation alleging that the husband-plaintiff suffered a series of injuries when he fell on a wet staircase at a Sandals resort in St. Lucia has been met with dismissal, while they continue to pursue a separate action.
Ronald Kerr and Dorothy Kerr of Yardley first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on May 23 versus Sandals Resorts International Limited of Montego Bay, St. James, Jamaica, Unique Vacations, Inc. of Panama, Unique Vacations, Ltd. of Nassau, Bahamas and Unique Travel Corp. of Panama.
“On or about June 5, 2022, and for a long time prior thereto, it was the duty of the defendants, by and through its trustees, directors, agents, servants, workmen, employees and/or other representatives, to keep and maintain the aforesaid premises located at Pigeon Island Gros Islet, St. Lucia, also known as Sandals Grande St. Lucia in a reasonably safe condition for persons lawfully upon the premises, such as plaintiff Ronald Kerr,” the suit said.
“On or about March 20, 2022, plaintiffs Ronald and Dorothy Kerr entered into a contract in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania with the defendants whereby they purchased, through defendant Unique Travel Corp, a vacation package from the defendants for an all-inclusive vacation from June 4, 2022 until June 11, 2022 at the defendants’ Sandals Grande St. Lucia resort. On or about June 5, 2022, plaintiff Ronald Kerr was an invitee at the defendants’ aforesaid premises located at Pigeon Island Gros Islet, St Lucia, also known as Sandals Grande St. Lucia.”
The plaintiffs argued that the defendants’ negligence was responsible for the subject events.
“On or about June 5, 2022, plaintiff Ronald Kerr, was lawfully on the aforesaid premises located at Pigeon Island Gros Islet, St. Lucia. Plaintiff was walking down the main set of stairs from the lobby and slipped on unmarked wet steps. He was holding on to a banister for support, when, suddenly and without warning, and as a direct result of a defective and/or dangerous condition of the premises, the banister plaintiff was holding onto snapped, thereby causing him to fall and sustain various severe and permanent bodily injuries and losses,” the suit stated.
Plaintiff Ronald Kerr claimed that he incurred severe injuries, including, but not limited to, concussion, post concussive syndrome, cervical sprain, lumbar sprain, lacerations to his right arm, tinnitus, sprain and strain in the right shoulder, as well as well as aches, pains, mental anxiety and anguish, and a severe shock to his entire nervous system.
It is the second time the plaintiffs are bringing suit related to the subject events at issue. The first lawsuit, filed in the same federal court, met with an early dismissal last December due to improper service.
UPDATE
On Aug. 24, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge John M. Murphy ordered that the plaintiffs had one week to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, failure to follow the Clerk of Court’s docket entry and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) – given that the plaintiffs “failed to follow the Clerk of Court’s May 23, 2023 entry requiring plaintiffs’ attorney to complete and file both a civil cover sheet and designation form, and plaintiffs are beyond the time to serve the complaint under Rule 4(m).”
In an Aug. 30 filing, the plaintiffs attributed the situation to a clerical error which resulted in the accidental initiation of a new case altogether (case number 2:23-cv-02028), and stated they “have not failed to prosecute their claims against defendants, but have simply proceeded under the false assumption they responded to the Court’s request, and that the action they were proceeding under was the originally filed action.”
The very next day, Murphy granted the instant action an unprejudiced dismissal.
“Upon considering our Aug. 24, 2023 order and plaintiffs’ response, it is ordered we dismiss this case without prejudice under Rule 4(m). To be clear, in light of the unusual circumstances and clerical errors described by plaintiffs, this dismissal is without prejudice, and specifically without prejudice with respect to plaintiffs’ right to pursue the [separate] action currently in front of Judge Quiñones,” Murphy ruled.
For counts of negligence – premises liability and loss of consortium, the plaintiffs are seeking damages not in excess of $150,000.
The plaintiffs were represented by Brandon A. Swartz of Swartz Culleton, in Newtown.
The defendants had not yet obtained legal counsel.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:23-cv-01942
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com