SCRANTON – A Schuylkill County couple and AMC Movie Theatres have mutually stipulated that a lawsuit claiming the wife-plaintiff suffered a broken right foot and other injuries, as a result of falling on an obscured hazard in a dimly lit AMC movie theater more than two years ago, would have its damages capped and be remanded to state court.
Traci Tentromono and Michael Tentromono of Shamokin initially filed suit in the Schuylkill County Court of Common Pleas on Nov. 22 versus American Multi-Cinema, Inc. (a.k.a. American Multi Cinema, Inc.) and AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. (doing business as “AMC Theatres”, “AMC Theatres, Inc.”, “AMC Classic Selinsgrove 12”, “AMC Classic Theatre No. 4419”, “AMC Cinemas” & “AMC Multi-Cinemas”), of Leawood, Kan.
“On Oct. 16, 2021, at or about 5:15 p.m., the plaintiff, Traci Tentromono, as a business invitee, along with four other family members, presented to and entered the defendant’s AMC Classic Selinsgrove 12 Movie Cineplex at 1 Susquehanna Valley Mall, Selinsgrove, PA 17870, and she purchased five movie tickets for her and family to see the feature ‘Halloween Kills’, believed to be in Theater No. 10, which was scheduled to begin at 5:35 p.m.,” the suit said.
“While the plaintiff and her family arrived approximately 15 to 20 minutes early for the 5:35 p.m. showing of ‘Halloween Kills’, when they entered the theater before the movie was expected to begin, it was already dark inside the theater prior to the start of the movie; however, nothing was playing on the movie screen. As plaintiff walked up an ascending ramp from the entrance of the theater, she turned to the right believing that the ramp would continue; however, as she turned, she tripped on a stair which was obscured by the darkness, and which could not be appreciated by the scant lighting available, and she fell and was propelled heavily to the ground fracturing her right foot and injuring her body, as set forth further herein.”
The suit added that “the only artificial lighting in the area where plaintiff fell was/were small lights under the banister rail, which did not adequately illuminate the area where the ramp ended and the stairs began, and the variation in the elevation of the walkway where the stairs began was obscured in the darkness, all of which constituted an unreasonable trip hazard.”
“Defendant knew or should have known of the existence of the trip hazard defect and/or irregularity in the elevation of the ramp walkway where the stairs began which was not adequately lighted, and defendant was obligated to remedy and eliminate the trip hazard or to warn plaintiff of its existence. Plaintiff’s above-described incident was not the first incident which occurred at defendant’s facility under similar circumstances, and, therefore, defendants were on notice of the dangerous and defective trip hazard which was present in their theaters. Specifically, defendants were notified of an injury to a patron who fell on Jan. 12, 2020, when he similarly tripped on an obscured step in defendants’ AMC Classic Selinsgrove No. 12 Cineplex, which the patron alleged was inadequately illuminated,” the suit stated.
“The dangerous and defective trip hazard that was not adequately illuminated was created and/or caused to be created and/or permitted to remain by defendants, by and through its employees, agents, servants, and workers who were acting within the course and scope of their employment by and with the defendants, and who were engaged in the furtherance of said defendants’ business causing plaintiff Traci Tentromono, to sustain serious injuries to her right ankle and foot, as well as to her hands and knees when she fell. Defendants have the duty to keep and maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition for the use of its patrons and business invitees. Defendants have the duty not to create or to allow to exist a dangerous or defective condition in dimly-lit conditions, and/or, if such a condition exists, to routinely inspect and eliminate the condition, and to give notice or warning to invitees who use the premises, like the plaintiff.”
The defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on Nov. 30, citing diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount of damages at issue crossing the federal court threshold of $75,000.
In a Dec. 12 follow-up answer to the complaint, defendant American Multi-Cinema, Inc. denied the plaintiffs’ substantive allegations and provided 10 separate affirmative defenses on its own behalf.
“Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a claim against answering defendant upon which relief can be granted. The personal injuries and/or damages alleged to have been sustained by plaintiffs were caused entirely or in part through the conduct of plaintiffs, without any negligence, fault or failure to act by answering defendant. Any damages suffered by plaintiffs may have resulted from the acts of third-persons over whom answering defendant has/had no control or responsibility and/or other circumstances for which answering defendant is not responsible. Whatever damages and injuries plaintiffs may have sustained at the time and place alleged in plaintiffs’ complaint were caused by the contributory negligence of plaintiffs. Therefore, plaintiffs are completely barred from recovering any amount of damages. Alternatively, whatever damages and injuries plaintiffs may have sustained at the time and place alleged in plaintiffs’ complaint were caused in whole or in part by the comparative negligence of plaintiffs, and, therefore, whatever amount of damages recovered, if any, shall be diminished in that proportion which said negligence attributable to plaintiffs bears to the culpable conduct which caused said damages and injuries,” the defenses stated.
“Any and all risks, hazards, defects, and dangers, to the extent alleged, were of an open, obvious, apparent and inherent nature, and were known or should have been known to plaintiffs, and the risk of injuries and damages alleged to have been sustained were assumed in whole or in part by plaintiffs. The amount of damages plaintiffs are entitled to recover, if any, must be reduced due to plaintiffs’ failure to mitigate, obviate, diminish or otherwise act to lessen or reduce the injuries, damages and disabilities alleged in plaintiffs’ complaint. The complaint may be barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of estoppel, laches and/or unclean hands. Plaintiffs’ damages, if any, were caused in whole or in part by subsequent intervening acts and/or the actions of persons or entities over whom answering defendant had no control or the right to control, all of which were not reasonably foreseeable. Plaintiffs’ claims may be barred by the doctrine of assumption of the risk.”
UPDATE
In a Jan. 16 filing, counsel for all parties mutually stipulated that damages in the case would be limited to a maximum amount of $75,000 and that the case would be remanded to its court of origin.
“It is hereby agreed and stipulated by and between the parties, by and through their undersigned counsel, that plaintiffs’ claim for damages, and therefore their recovery at trial, and/or any other adjudication of this matter, is capped at and shall not exceed $75,000, exclusive of any interest, delay damages, taxable court/record costs and/or penalties to the extent applicable; therefore, it is also agreed and stipulated between the parties, by and through their undersigned counsel, that this matter is hereby remanded from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania to the Schuylkill County Court of Common Pleas,” the filing stated.
The following day, Jan. 17, U.S. Magistrate Judge Daryl F. Bloom approved the stipulation and issued a judicial order to that effect.
“Upon consideration of the parties’ stipulation to remand this case to state court and cap damages at $75,000, it is hereby ordered that the parties’ stipulation is approved, and this case shall be remanded to the Schuylkill County Court of Common Pleas,” Bloom said.
For counts of negligence, negligence per se and loss of consortium, the plaintiffs are seeking damages in excess of $50,000, plus interest, costs and other relief as this Court deems proper and just.
The plaintiffs are represented by Anthony James Urban of the Law Offices of Anthony Urban, in Pottsville.
The defendants are represented by Ralph J. Luongo of Kennedys CMK, LLP, in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 3:23-cv-01979
Schuylkill County Court of Common Pleas case S-1857-2023
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com