PHILADELPHIA – Delaware Valley University has denied claims from a New Jersey woman who alleged that she fell inside a shower area on the school campus due to the institution’s negligence.
Rachel Riendeau of Sicklerville, N.J. initially filed suit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on July 12 versus Delaware Valley University of Doylestown and John Does 1-3.
“On or about Sept. 13, 2021, at approximately 8 p.m., a dangerous, negligent and/or defective condition existed on the premises and shower floor as aforesaid and defendants knew or should have known of the existence of same,” the suit said.
“On the aforesaid date and tilde, the plaintiff, Rachel Riendeau, was lawfully inside the dorm shower at the aforesaid premises, when by reason of the negligence of the defendants, the plaintiff was caused to trip, slip, stumble and/or fall due a wet floor covered in grime, a result of which caused plaintiff to sustain serious and severe injuries.”
The suit added the defendants knew or should have known of the existence of the hazardous and dangerous condition on the aforesaid premises and floor, and failed to warn others of that condition.
“Solely because of the negligence of the defendants acting as aforesaid, the plaintiff was caused to sustain serious physical injury in and about the person, including but not limited to plaintiff’s head, neck and back, as well as a severe shock to the nerves and nervous system and was or may have been otherwise injured, whereby plaintiff' has suffered and may continue to suffer in the future and/or may be permanent,” the suit stated.
“The plaintiff may have sustained other injuries and pre-existing conditions may have been aggravated. The plaintiff avers that some or all of the injuries sustained may be or are of a permanent nature and character. As a further result of the aforesaid accident, plaintiff has been unable in the past, and is likely to continue to be unable in the future, to attend to plaintiff’s usual duties, activities, vocations and avocations, all to plaintiff’s great financial loss and detriment.”
The university defendant removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Aug. 23, citing the diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount of damages in question.
UPDATE
The university answered the action on Sept. 26, denied the plaintiff’s allegations and put forward 17 affirmative defenses.
“Plaintiff may have failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. The applicable statute of limitations may have expired prior to the institution of this action. Answering defendant was not negligent and/or careless at any time material hereto. If answering defendant was negligent, which is expressly denied, then the acts or omissions of answering defendant alleged to constitute negligence were not factual causes or substantial factors resulting in the damages or injuries of which plaintiff complains and did not result in the injuries or damages alleged by plaintiff. The incident and/or damages described in plaintiff’s complaint may have been caused or contributed to by plaintiff. Negligent acts or omissions of other individuals and/or entities may have constituted intervening, superseding causes of the damages and/or injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff. Plaintiff may have assumed the risk of her own conduct. Plaintiff may have been contributorily negligent. The incident, injuries and/or damages alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff were not proximately caused by the acts or omissions of answering defendant,” according to those defenses.
“The negligence of plaintiff exceeded the alleged negligence of answering defendant (with the negligence of answering defendant being expressly denied) and therefore, plaintiff is barred from recovery pursuant to the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. Plaintiff’s recovery, if any, may be reduced due to plaintiff’s own negligence pursuant to the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. Plaintiff may have entered into a release with other entities which has the effect of discharging answering defendant in this action. Plaintiff may have failed to mitigate damages. Answering defendant breached no duty owed to plaintiff. Plaintiff’s claims for medical expenses must be reduced by the total amount of any and all medical expenses charged, but not actually paid by or on behalf of plaintiff. Any amount of medical expenses claimed by plaintiff must be reduced by any expenses written off or deducted by any health care provider. Answering defendant incorporates by reference all affirmative defenses available under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Answering defendant denies any and all allegations of actual or constructive notice.”
For a lone count of negligence, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of the arbitration limits and in excess of the federal court jurisdictional limits for cases based on diversity jurisdiction.
The plaintiff is represented by Marshall D. Bleefeld of Rosenbaum & Associates, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Salvatore A. Vilardi of Cipriani & Werner, in Blue Bell.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:23-cv-03250
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 230701112
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com