PITTSBURGH – An Allegheny County woman who brought suit against discount grocery store chain Aldi, after she said a metal produce shelf fell on her when she was shopping inside the grocer’s West Mifflin store recently settled her claims.
Charmaine M. Dettore-Louda of Homestead first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Dec. 6, 2022 versus ALDI, Inc. (Pennsylvania), of Batavia, Ill.
“On Dec. 7, 2020, at approximately 4:08 p.m., plaintiff, a business invitee, was lawfully on the subject premises. At the time and place described above, plaintiff entered the produce aisle and was attempting to select and/or pick up a container of strawberries when – suddenly and without warning – a metal shelf and/or metal bar broke off and/or fell off the produce display, crashing down onto plaintiff’s left ankle and foot,” the suit said.
“At the time of the subject incident, there were no warnings regarding the metal shelf and/or metal bar breaking and/or falling off at the subject premises. At all material times hereto, a dangerous, hazardous, unsafe, and/or defective condition existed for a period of time on the subject premises.”
The suit added the defendant “had knowledge of the ongoing dangerous, hazardous, and/or unsafe condition in and/or on the subject premises, or in the alternative, under the reasonable exercise of due care and/or inspection, should have known of the dangerous, hazardous, unsafe condition and/or defective condition.”
“As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ negligence and/or carelessness, as set forth more fully throughout this complaint, plaintiff sustained serious injuries and damages, including but not limited to the following, all or some of which may be permanent in nature: Fracture of left distal phalanx hallux; Mild edema of left dorsal forefoot; Left foot injury; Tenderness in left foot and toes; Pain in left foot and toes; Contusion of left great toe with damage to nail; Low back pain; left knee pain; Cervicalgia/neck pain; Arm numbness; overall pain and suffering; Inconvenience and disruption of daily activities; Loss of enjoyment of life and life’s pleasures; Past and future medical expenses; Incident-related out of pocket expenses; and residual injuries and complications from incident-related injuries and medical treatment necessitated by incident related injuries,” the suit stated.
Aldi filed an answer and new matter in the case on Jan. 20, 2023, which totally denied liability for the events in question.
“Plaintiff’s claims may be barred by the passing of the applicable statute of limitations. No dangerous, unsafe, or defective condition existed at the subject business premises. Plaintiff’s claimed injuries and damages are not causally related to the incident in question. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. Answering defendant was not negligent as a matter of law. Answering defendant acted reasonably and exercised due care under the circumstances and was not negligent or careless. Some, or all, of the injuries and damages alleged in plaintiff's complaint may not arise out of the incident alleged in plaintiff's complaint,” the answer’s new matter stated, in part.
“Plaintiff’s claims are barred and/or limited as the alleged hazardous, dangerous, and/or otherwise unsafe condition complained of in plaintiff’s complaint was open and obvious and known to the plaintiff or should have been known to the plaintiff by use of ordinary diligence. Defendant did not have any notice, either actual or constructive, of the claimed dangerous or defective condition nor would a reasonable inspection of the premises have disclosed any such alleged dangerous or defective condition, to the extent one existed, at the time of plaintiff’s claimed injuries. Plaintiff’s recovery may be barred or reduced by her comparative negligence. The incident as alleged in the complaint was caused solely or in part by plaintiff’s negligent conduct. Plaintiff’s claims may be barred and/or limited by the Fair Share Act. The alleged incident did not arise from any foreseen circumstances on behalf of answering defendant. Plaintiff may have assumed the risks of her injuries. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of obvious danger.”
On Jan. 30, 2023, the plaintiff issued a reply to the defense’s new matter.
“The averments contained in Paragraph 16-41 of defendant’s new matter are conclusions of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. However, if any statement of fact is averred, the same is specifically denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure,” the reply stated.
UPDATE
Nine months after the previous filing, the case docket noted in a praecipe from plaintiff counsel that the action had been settled on Oct. 31. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed.
“Kindly mark the above-captioned matter settled, discontinued and ended,” the praecipe stated.
The plaintiff was represented by Wayne M. Chiurazzi, Donna M. Flaherty and Sarah M. Benedetti of The Chiurazzi Law Group, in Pittsburgh.
The defendant was represented by Jennifer Glazer Shorr of Weber Gallagher Simpson Stapleton Fires & Newby, in Philadelphia.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-22-014934
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com