MEDIA – A Delaware County woman who alleged that Fernwood Cemetery was negligent in the operation of its funerary grounds, the result of which was her falling into a deep hole at the cemetery, has resolved her claims.
Deloris Williams of Upper Chichester first filed suit in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas on Feb. 10 versus Fernwood Cemetery Company and Fernwood Vault Company, both of Lansdowne.
“On or about Feb. 11, 2022 at approximately 2 p.m., plaintiff Deloris Williams was attending a funeral service at Fernwood Cemetery, located at 6501 East Baltimore Avenue, Lansdowne, PA 19050. At all times relevant to this action, plaintiff was legally on the premises as a business invitee and, as such, was owed the highest degree of care,” the suit said.
“On the aforementioned date, plaintiff was standing near a grave site at a funeral service. As the attendees were preparing to put flowers on the casket, plaintiff took two steps backwards, so that she was not in the way of the family members. As plaintiff stepped backwards, both of her feet went into a deep hole in the ground, causing her to fall into the hole and suffer serious injuries.”
The suit added that as the operators of a cemetery, the defendants knew or should have known that individuals frequently walk on grass and dirt areas and taken proper care to ensure the ground was level, especially near a site where a funeral service was being held – and that allowing such a large hole to exist in an area where individuals often walk, needlessly endangers the public.
“As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and carelessness of defendants, plaintiff Deloris Williams sustained serious and permanent injuries which caused a serious impairment of body function. Plaintiff’s injuries include, without limitation, injuries to her muscles, tendons, ligaments, bones, right leg, right ankle, right foot, right knee sprain and strain, right ankle sprain and strain, partial tear of the Achilles tendon, and aggravation of pre-existing conditions, if any, all or some of which are or may be permanent. Plaintiff also makes claim for such injuries, damages and consequences of which she has no present knowledge,” the suit stated.
“As a further result of this accident, plaintiff has been or will be obliged to receive and undergo medical attention and care and to expend various sums of money and/or to incur various expenses for the injuries she has suffered and she may be obliged to continue to expend such sums or incur such expenditures for an indefinite time in the future. As a further result of this accident, plaintiff has or may suffer a severe loss of her earnings and of her earning capacity and power.”
The defendants answered the complaint on March 14, denying the events as presented by the plaintiff, and provided new matter supporting their arguments.
“No cause of action exists against the defendants. Plaintiff’s claims are barred and/or limited pursuant to the doctrine of assumption of the risk and because the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the known risk factor. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred and/or limited by the contributory negligence of plaintiff and, in the alternative, a recovery by the plaintiff must be reduced by the percentage of causal negligence attributable to plaintiff in accordance with the Comparative Negligence Act. The defect or defective condition complained of, with these allegations being specifically denied, was open and obvious, and plaintiff failed to take due note and observation of it for her own care and safety; therefore, defendants owed no duty or care to the plaintiff, and plaintiff’s claims are barred. Defendants had no notice of any defects, defective conditions and/or any alleged hazard that may have existed on or about the premises and, therefore, owed no duty to the plaintiff,” the new matter said.
“No act or omission of defendants caused or was a substantial factor in causing the incident alleged in plaintiff’s complaint and/or injuries, damages or losses allegedly sustained by plaintiff. To the extent that the accident location contained alleged defects, said defects being denied by defendants, such defects are the result of normal wear and tear, natural conditions and/or acts of God. Defendants aver that plaintiff’s alleged injuries, damages, and/or treatment are unrelated to the accident and/or incident alleged in plaintiff’s complaint. Defendants aver that plaintiff’s alleged injuries, damages, and treatment, if any, are unreasonable and excessive in light of the facts of this case. Plaintiff’s claim for medical expenses, with the existence of same being denied, 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 that are written off or deducted by any health care provider.”
The new matter also postulated that the plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages and that her claims are barred or limited by the Fair Share Act.
UPDATE
On Jan. 2, plaintiff counsel filed correspondence with the Court that the case had been resolved. It was not immediately clear if a settlement had resolved the action, and if any such agreement had been reached, its terms were not disclosed.
“The parties have resolved this matter. Kindly remove this case from any upcoming proceedings and cancel the upcoming arbitration. Thank you for your consideration,” the letter stated.
The plaintiff was represented by Colleen J. Borum of Fine & Staud, in Philadelphia.
The defendants were represented by Robert Connell Pugh of Kane Pugh Knoell Troy & Kraemer, in Blue Bell.
Delaware County Court of Common Pleas case CV-2023-001156
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com