PITTSBURGH – A local cyclist continues to contend that due to a lack of adequate lighting, he fell off his bicycle on the Three Rivers Heritage Trail in Pittsburgh and suffered a host of severe injuries.
Aaron Gaglia of Pittsburgh first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on July 12 versus Friends of the Riverfront, Inc. of Etna and the City of Pittsburgh.
“The Three Rivers Heritage Trail is a designed designated and improved recreational trail that runs parallel to the riverbanks in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania and is used at all times of the day and night for both recreation and transportation by pedestrians and bicyclists. At all times relevant, defendant, Friends of the Riverfront was responsible for the care, custody, control, maintenance, and safety of the Three Rivers Heritage Trail. At all times relevant, defendant City owned and was in custody and control of the Three Rivers Heritage Trail,” the suit said.
“The Three Rivers Heritage Trail is a known area for bicycle traffic and specifically developed for biking and walking for leisure and transportation. Said Three Rivers Heritage Trail has no artificial lighting directly on the trail. At all times relevant hereto, there was a metal motor vehicle traffic blocker on the cantilever bridge across from Washington's Landing, in the middle of the Three Rivers Heritage Trail. On or before July 21, 2022, the said unmarked, metal traffic blocker, approximately two feet in height, was present on the Three Rivers Heritage Trail at or about 10 p.m.”
The suit added that it was believed and therefore averred that the purpose of the unmarked, metal traffic blocker is to prevent motor vehicles from traveling across the cantilevered bridge – and that the blacker was able to be moved up or down by removal or insertion of a metal pin, and did not have reflectors, lights nor any other markings, indicating the presence of the traffic blocker in times of low light or night.
“On or about July 21, 2022, at approximately 10 p.m., plaintiff met with approximately 20 cyclists near the West End Circle and entered onto the Three Rivers Heritage Trail near the Rivers Casino along the Allegheny River for a customary evening ride throughout the City. At all times relevant, the Three Rivers Heritage Trail was dark and there was inadequate lighting on said trail along with a lack of reflective material or appropriate hazards. It was known to the defendants that cyclists would frequently use said trail for evening rides. At all times relevant, plaintiff was wearing a headlamp on his head and was operating a custom road bicycle,” the suit stated.
“At approximately 10:30 p.m., plaintiff was operating his bicycle carefully in a northwestern direction on the Three Rivers Heritage Trail between the 31st Street Bridge and the 40th Street Bridge. As plaintiff carefully proceeded in a northwestern direction, his bicycle crashed into the unmarked, non-reflective, metal traffic blocker, which defendants created, maintained and/or should have known existed on the Three Rivers Heritage Trail. The impact was so violent that it caused plaintiff to be thrown into the air, headfirst, landing on the right side of his face and his right shoulder.”
In the process, Gaglia said he suffered a closed head injury; bruises, abrasions and lacerations to his forehead, right eye, nose and right shoulder; generalized trauma and injury to his face, requiring sutures; generalized trauma and injury to his right shoulder, and nervousness, emotional tension and anxiety.
The City filed an answer with new matter and a cross-claim on Aug. 15, denying its substantive claims and redirecting liability to its co-defendant, Friends of the Riverfront.
“Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The City denies all allegations of negligence set forth in plaintiff’s complaint. This lawsuit is governed by the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act. The City raises all applicable protections of this Act as a defense/bar to plaintiff’s claims. This lawsuit is also governed by the Recreational Use of Land and Water Act. The City raises all applicable protections of this Act as a defense/bar to plaintiff’s claims. The City pleads immunity as an affirmative defense. The City pleads the public duty doctrine as an affirmative defense. The City did not fail in any duty or obligation that might have been owed to plaintiff,” per the City’s new matter.
“Any right of plaintiff to recover in this action, which right is expressly denied, is governed, diminished and/or barred by his contributory and/or comparative negligence and the City claims all benefits of the provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. Any alleged damages to which plaintiff may otherwise be entitled, which entitlement is expressly denied, must be reduced and/or barred by plaintiff’s comparative negligence. The City believes and therefore avers that plaintiff was negligent and his negligence proximately caused and/or contributed to his alleged injuries, all of which have been expressly denied. The City believes and therefore avers that plaintiff was not looking where he was riding and/or choosing an appropriate path. The alleged defect was open and obvious. At all times relevant hereto, plaintiff was aware of all conditions of the Three Rivers Heritage Trail, and that the Three Rivers Heritage Trail is open from dawn until dusk. Plaintiff assumed the risk riding a bicycle at 10:30 p.m., at dark, after the trail was closed and not intended for use.”
Friends of the Riverfront also provided an answer, new matter and cross-claim on Aug. 24, which further denied the plaintiff’s claims and asserted cross-claim liability belongs to the City instead.
“Plaintiff’s claims are barred and/or limited by the provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. By plaintiff’s actions at the time, date, and place stated in the complaint, plaintiff assumed the risk of any and all injuries and/or damages which they is alleged to have suffered. Plaintiff’s claims are or may be barred or limited by application of the terms and provisions of Pennsylvania’s ‘Fair Share Act’. Plaintiff’s claims are barred and/or limited by the applicable statute of limitations. The complaint, or portions thereof, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The damages alleged by plaintiff in the complaint did not result from acts or omissions of defendant, but from acts and/or omissions of third-parties over whom defendant had no control,” per the group’s new matter.
“Plaintiff’s alleged causes of action are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of laches. The negligent or reckless acts or omissions of other persons or entities may constitute a superseding and/or intervening cause of the injuries claimed. The action should be dismissed for failure to join any and all necessary and indispensable parties. The plaintiff’s claims are barred or substantially reduced because plaintiff failed to act reasonably or timely to mitigate damages. The acts or omissions of answering defendant were not a factual cause or legal cause of the injury, loss or damage alleged by the plaintiff. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 238, and any other regulation concerning delay damages, pre-judgment interest or post judgment interest, is unconstitutional and in violation of the Constitution of the United States of America and of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. If Rule 238 or the other aforementioned rules of law are found to be constitutional, the answering defendant should not be charged for any damages which are not attributable directly to his conduct.”
UPDATE
The plaintiff replied to the Friends of the Riverfront’s new matter on Sept. 18, generally denying it as conclusions of law to which no response is required and further providing more specific defenses.
“In no way was plaintiff negligent in this incident. To the contrary, plaintiff’s injuries and damages are a direct and proximate result of defendants’ negligence. In no way could plaintiff assume that there was an unmarked, metal traffic blacker on a trail that cyclists were known to frequent. To the contrary, plaintiff instituted this lawsuit well within the applicable statute of limitations. To the contrary, plaintiff’s complaint adequately states claims of negligence against both defendants. Plaintiff’s injuries and damages are a direct and proximate result of defendants’ negligence. Plaintiff included all necessary parties in his lawsuit. Defendant Friends of the Riverfront, Inc. has the right to join additional defendants should they so choose,” the reply stated.
“Defendants’ negligent conduct caused plaintiff’s injuries and damages. To the contrary, both defendants were on notice of the defect as other individuals had been injured in the area before plaintiff. It is specifically denied that the unmarked, metal traffic blocker on a trail that cyclists were known to frequent was open and obvious. By way of further answer, plaintiff was not walking at the time of this incident. Furthermore, plaintiff’s injuries are a direct result of defendants’ negligence. By way of further answer, in no way could plaintiff have known that there was an unmarked, metal traffic blocker on a trail that cyclists were known to frequent. To the contrary, plaintiff was unable to see the unmarked, metal traffic blocker as there was inadequate lighting in the area.”
For counts of negligence, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of the jurisdictional arbitration limit, plus interest and costs.
The plaintiff is represented by William F. Goodrich and Bianca M. DiNardo of Goodrich & Geist, in Pittsburgh.
The defendants are represented by Krysia M. Kubiak and Mary Ann DiIanni of the City of Pittsburgh’s Law Department, plus D.J. Dawson of Bunker & Ray, in Philadelphia.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-23-008458
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com