MEDIA – A complaint from a Glenolden man alleging he was assaulted and threatened by an employee of a cleaning service outside his child’s elementary school, has been withdrawn three days after it was filed.
Zachary Stanton of Glenolden filed suit in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas on Sept. 11 versus Braheem Hudson of Chester, LT Clean & Clear Cleaning Service, LLC and Latisha Bobbitt, both of Brookhaven.
“This action arises out of an incident that occurred on Nov. 8, 2021, at 100 South McDade Boulevard, Glenolden, Pennsylvania, on a parking lot area of the Glenolden Elementary School, whose premises are public property. The plaintiff was lawfully on the said premises for the purpose of meeting with elementary school personnel, concerning his child who was a student at the school. On the aforesaid date, defendant Hudson was at the above location, having traveled there in a motor vehicle that was owned by defendant LT. Defendant Bobbitt was also present at the above location at the time of the incident described below, and she was acting as the supervisor of defendant Hudson,” the suit said.
“On information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, defendant Hudson was at the above location in the course and scope of his employment with LT to do cleaning work at the said elementary school, on behalf of defendant LT. At the aforesaid date and place, defendant Hudson, without provocation or justification, viciously attacked and physically assaulted the plaintiff. In the presence of defendant Bobbitt, defendant Hudson went directly up to the plaintiff and proceeded to assault the plaintiff. Defendant Hudson grabbed the plaintiff, violently threw him onto the paved surface of the parking lot, repeatedly punched and pummeled the plaintiff, and caused the plaintiff to suffer the serious injuries described below.”
The suit added during the course of this assault, defendant Hudson said loudly and clearly to the plaintiff that he “wanted to shoot the plaintiff and his family with a gun and otherwise made terroristic threats of murdering plaintiff and his family.”
“At no time during the above-described assault and battery did defendant Bobbitt attempt to intervene, nor did she instruct or ask defendant Hudson to cease his senseless assault and battery of the plaintiff. The above-described incident, and the plaintiff’s resulting injuries, was caused by the intentional wrongdoing of defendant Hudson, and by the carelessness and negligence of defendants Bobbitt and LT as set forth below, and was in no way caused by any act or omission on the part of the plaintiff. Following the above-described incident, defendant Hudson was charged with and subsequently convicted of a crime committed against the plaintiff. The above-described incident directly resulted in severe physical and emotional injuries to the plaintiff,” the suit stated.
“At all relevant times, Hudson was an employee of defendant LT and defendant Bobbitt and he was acting in the course and scope of his employment. Defendant Hudson was at the said location on to perform a job (cleaning work) as the employee, agent, worker, and/or representative of defendant LT and defendant Bobbitt. Defendant Hudson was hired, trained, supervised and sent to the said location by defendant LT and defendant Bobbitt to perform a job for the financial benefit of defendant LT and defendant Bobbitt, and Hudson was at all relevant times acting under the control and at the direction of defendant LT and defendant Bobbitt.”
The suit said the plaintiff suffered a litany of injuries in the assault, including a concussion, various spinal injuries, a lacerated lip, scarring and disfigurement, along with various psychological injuries.
Furthermore, the suit provided that defendant Hudson “had vicious and dangerous propensities and was prone to commit violent assaults on other persons.”
“In 2018, defendant Hudson was convicted of a crime of violence pursuant to Pennsylvania Criminal Code 18 Pa. C.S. Section 5503(a)(4). His guilty plea followed his being involuntarily ejected from an ADR program to which he had been admitted, pre-trial. This conviction was at all relevant times a matter of public record easily discovered by any member of the public, including defendants Bobbitt and LT. It is believed and therefore averred that defendant Hudson had been involved in other acts of violence prior to the day of the subject attack,” the suit says.
“Despite their awareness of defendant Hudson’s violent propensities, defendant LT and defendant Bobbitt hired and retained defendant Hudson, and allowed and directed defendant Hudson to go to public places where he would come in contact with other people and subject other people to his violent propensities. Despite their awareness of defendant Hudson’s past criminal conduct and his violent propensities, defendant LT and defendant Bobbitt failed to take reasonable steps to properly train and supervise defendant Hudson, so as to prohibit him from assaulting other people while he was on the job. Defendant LT and defendant Bobbitt failed to take reasonable steps to otherwise protect the public from defendant Hudson’s violent nature while he was working for LT.”
However, just three days later, on Sept. 14, plaintiff counsel filed a praecipe asking the Court to mark the complaint as withdrawn.
Prior to the complaint’s withdrawal and for counts of intentional tort, negligence and vicarious liability, the plaintiff had been seeking damages in excess of $50,000, together with costs, interest and any other relief which the Court may deem appropriate.
The plaintiff was represented by Jeffrey R. Lessin and Stephen Cristal of the Law Offices of Jeffrey R. Lessin & Associates, in Philadelphia.
The defendants had not obtained legal counsel.
Delaware County Court of Common Pleas case CV-2023-007729
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com