LANCASTER – The City of Lancaster has denied allegations of negligence, in litigation from a Delaware woman who claimed such circumstances resulted in her falling on a broken curb and sidewalk located in front of a local civic organization’s headquarters more than two years ago.
Lorri Park of Millsboro, Del. first filed suit in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas on Sept. 11 versus the Hamilton Club of Lancaster, Pennsylvania and the City of Lancaster.
“On or about Sept. 13, 2021, plaintiff Lorri Park was caused to trip, stumble and fall when her foot became tangled in the overgrown roots of a tree and the broken curbing and sidewalk, adjacent to the street on the North Duke Street side of the Hamilton Club that is located at 106 East Orange Street, Lancaster, Pennsylvania,” the suit stated.
“At all times material hereto, the defendants had under their respective ownership, care, direction, supervision and/or control as well as responsibility for inspection and maintenance of the area where the incident occurred and were responsible for exercising due care that the area was safe, non-hazardous and in good condition along with the related duty to warn of hazardous conditions.”
The suit continued that the carelessness and negligence of the defendant Hamilton Club consisted of their allowing a dangerous and defective condition to develop, remain, and persist; failing to replace or repair the damaged sidewalk/curbing when it knew or should have known that a dangerous condition existed for those using the walkway area; violating pertinent federal, state and municipal laws and building ordinances, in the care, maintenance, inspection and requirements for sidewalks/curbing; failing to properly or sufficiently inspect the subject areas and failing to warn individuals of the defective and hazardous condition of the said premises, particularly the area where plaintiff was caused to trip, among other rationales.
“As a result of the aforesaid carelessness and negligence of the defendants, the plaintiff sustained serious and painful personal injuries including, but not limited to, an avulsion fracture of the talus on the right ankle, contusion of left knee and medial compartment disease with bone-on-bone contact in the left knee, which required a left unicondylar knee replacement, as well as other injuries the full extent of which are not known, all of which have caused her great pain and suffering, some or all of which may be of a permanent nature and character and may continue for an indefinite time in the future,” the suit said.
“As a result of the aforesaid carelessness and negligence of the defendants, the plaintiff has been and may in the future be required to expend considerable sums of money for medical treatment and care in an effort to treat and cure herself for the injuries sustained as aforesaid, any and all of which may continue to her great financial loss and detriment into the future.”
UPDATE
On Oct. 16, counsel for the City answered the complaint and denied its substantive allegations, before providing new matter on its own behalf.
“The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Discovery may reveal that plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages. Discovery may reveal that some of plaintiff’s medical conditions and limitations pre-existed the date of the subject accident and were not caused or aggravated by the accident. Discovery may reveal that some of plaintiff’s medical conditions and limitations were caused or aggravated by events that occurred subsequent to the date of the subject incident. Any act(s) or omission(s) of answering defendant alleged to constitute negligence may not be substantial factors or factual causes of the subject accident and/or may not have resulted in the injuries and/or losses alleged by plaintiff. The negligent acts or omissions of other individuals and/or entities may have constituted intervening and/or superseding causes of the damages and/or injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff,” per that new matter, in part.
“The condition of which plaintiff now complains was open and obvious to her or to a reasonable person in the position of the plaintiff. Plaintiff’s alleged cause(s) of action may be barred and/or limited by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act and/or the Fair Share Act. Plaintiff’s alleged cause(s) of action may be barred and/or limited by the Pennsylvania Worker’s Compensation Act. Answering defendant had no notice, actual or constructive, of the alleged dangerous and/or defective condition identified in plaintiff’s complaint. Answering defendant did not create the alleged dangerous and/or defective condition identified in plaintiff’s complaint. The area where plaintiff allegedly fell was under the care and control of individuals or entities other than answering defendant, and if there was any unsafe condition thereon, it was due to the negligence and carelessness of said entities or individuals.”
The City further argued that it did not own the property described in the complaint, that it is entitled to governmental immunity and that the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act applies in this case.
Finally, the City levied a cross-claim which redirected liability for the events at issue to its co-defendant, the Hamilton Club.
For two counts of negligence, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of $50,000, plus interest, delay damages and costs of suit.
The plaintiff is represented by Randall M. Justice of Haggerty Silverman & Justice, in Lancaster.
Defendant City of Lancaster is represented by Robert J. Schweiger of William J. Ferren & Associates, in Hartford, Conn.
Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas case CI-23-06323
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com