PHILADELPHIA – A local man who claimed he suffered a litany of severe injuries, when his cane became stuck in a hole at a Philadelphia train station platform, has settled his case with the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) and Amtrak.
Robert Young first filed suit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on May 10, 2023 versus SEPTA, National Railroad Passenger Corporation (doing business as “Amtrak”), ABC Companies and John/Jane Does. All parties are of Philadelphia.
“On or about Dec. 8, 2021, plaintiff Robert Young was lawfully traversing the platform at defendants’ Bridesburg Train Station in the City and County of Philadelphia, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, when suddenly and without warning, he was caused to fall when his cane became stuck in a hole existing in the platform at the location as stated aforesaid,” the suit said.
“As a result of the negligence of the defendant as aforesaid, plaintiff was caused to sustain severe personal injuries. The aforementioned incident was caused by the negligence of the defendants and did not result from an act or omission of the plaintiff. At all times pertinent hereto, the defendants owned, operated, maintained, controlled, possessed, repaired and were responsible for conditions at the aforesaid location.”
The suit added that the dangerous and defective condition existing at the premises had existed long enough for the defendants to have had actual and/or constructive notice of the dangerous defect(s), that it was created by the defendants and therefore the plaintiff need not prove actual or constructive notice of the same.
“As a result of the aforesaid accident, plaintiff was caused to sustain serious personal injuries to his head, neck, back and surrounding areas, and other injuries both known and unknown, all of which have caused and may further cause in the future great pain, and suffering and agony and a deprivation of his normal mode of living and a loss of earnings and/or earning power,” the suit stated.
“As a further result of the aforesaid accident and injuries, the plaintiff has suffered permanent injury, serious impairment of a bodily function and disability as well as embarrassment, humiliation and toss of life’s pleasures. As a result of the aforesaid injuries, the plaintiff has incurred medical and other expenses in treating himself and may be obliged to incur additional expense in the future. Plaintiff is entitled to make a claim, since there is an excess of $1,500 in medical expenses and suffered a permanent impairment of a bodily function.”
On July 20, 2023, SEPTA answered the complaint, denied liability for its allegations and redirected such liability to its co-defendant, Amtrak.
“Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. SEPTA is a body corporate in politic exercising public powers of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as an agency and instrumentality…and asserts all defenses, immunities and limitations available to them pursuant thereto. The injuries suffered by plaintiff were directly and proximately caused by the acts, omissions, carelessness or negligence of persons or entities other than SEPTA. The negligence of others was a superseding or intervening cause of the accident. Plaintiff’s claims against SEPTA are barred by applicable statutes of limitations and/or laches. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by doctrines of waiver and/or estoppel. SEPTA acted in a reasonable, prudent, and proper manner at all relevant times. The liability of SEPTA, if any, is mitigated by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Statue and by contributory negligence and assumption of risk principles; plaintiff’s injuries and damages were caused by his own negligence, which was more than 50% responsible for those injuries and the plaintiff’s claims are therefore barred by that comparative negligence,” SEPTA’s new matter said.
“In the alternative, any recovery by plaintiff must be reduced to the extent his comparative negligence contributed to the accident and injuries. SEPTA complied with all federal, state, and local statutes, regulations and ordinances in effect during the relevant time. Plaintiff failed to provide notice within the applicable time limitations required and in the form required by 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 5522. Under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, no interest shall accrue in any action against SEPTA and/or its employees prior to the entry of any judgment. Plaintiff’s claimed injuries in whole or in part, medical treatment, and the bills and charges therefore, were not necessary and reasonable and were not causally connected to the accident complained of. Plaintiff’s claims are preempted and/or barred in whole or in part by federal law and/or state law. Inasmuch as Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1032 provides that any party waives all defenses not presented by way of answer and/or affirmative new matter, SEPTA reserves the right to assert all affirmative defenses not otherwise enumerated herein including but not limited to those as set forth in Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1030, the said affirmative defenses are subject to demonstration during the discovery process and proof as relevant at the time of trial.”
Plaintiff counsel replied to the answer and new matter on July 25, 2023, denying its assertions as conclusions of law to which no answer is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, and that strict proof of same is demanded at trial.
Counsel for Amtrak then requested that the case be removed to federal court in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Aug. 9, 2023, since the company was created by an Act of Congress and more than half of its corporate stock is owned by the federal government. SEPTA consented to this removal.
Amtrak answered the complaint on Aug. 16, 2023, denying its substantive allegations and providing 13 affirmative defenses on its own behalf.
“Any injuries suffered by plaintiff were caused solely by his own negligence and not by any negligence of Amtrak. Any injuries suffered by plaintiff were not caused by a negligent act or omission of Amtrak or any individuals acting under Amtrak’s direction or control. To the extent any damages, losses, or injuries sustained by plaintiff were caused by the acts and/or omissions of persons or entities other than Amtrak, and over whom Amtrak exercised no control, Amtrak is not responsible for same. To the extent plaintiff has failed to mitigate or otherwise act to lessen or reduce the damages alleged in the amended complaint, same should be reduced accordingly,” according to those defenses, in part.
“Any claims which plaintiff may have against Amtrak are barred or, alternatively, must be reduced by virtue of the doctrine of comparative negligence and/or contributory negligence. Plaintiff’s rights to recover damages may be barred, in whole or in part, pursuant to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Plaintiff’s claims may be limited, preempted, and/or precluded by federal law. To the extent plaintiff’s injuries and damages are the result of natural processes and/or pre-existing conditions, he should be precluded from recovering for same.”
UPDATE
After a successful settlement conference took place on Jan. 29, U.S. Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lloret issued an order on Feb. 7 which closed the case. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed.
“It having been reported that the issues between the parties in the above action have been settled and upon Order of the Court pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41.1(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of this Court, it is ordered that the above action is dismissed with prejudice, pursuant to agreement of counsel,” Lloret said.
The plaintiff was represented by David Sherman of Solomon Sherman & Gabay, in Philadelphia.
The defendants were represented by Mark E. Gottlieb and Justine A. Baakman of Offit Kurman, Joshua D. Groff of Green Silverstein & Groff, plus Yuri J. Brunetti and Bryce Adam Gates of Landman Corsi Ballaine & Ford, all in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:23-cv-03054
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 230501143
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com