PHILADELPHIA – A Bensalem location of the Texas Roadhouse restaurant chain has denied allegations from a Philadelphia couple that it was negligent in the conduct of its employees, leading the husband-plaintiff to be struck with a serving tray, fall and suffer a severe back injury.
Willie Jones and Tamika Jones of Philadelphia first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on March 27 versus Texas Roadhouse Holdings, LLC, of Louisville, Ky.
“At all times material hereto, defendant owned, maintained, and/or controlled a ‘Texas Roadhouse’ restaurant located at 1545 Street Road, Bensalem, PA 19020. At all times material hereto, defendant, acted and failed to act by and through it duly-authorized agents, servants, workers and employees, including but not limited to, the employee that struck Mr. Jones with a serving tray. On July 2, 2022, Mr. Jones, then age 60, was a patron, and business invitee, at defendant’s restaurant located at 1545 Street Road, Bensalem, PA 19020. On that date, Mr. Jones was standing in the busy lobby, waiting to be seated,” the suit said.
“While at the restaurant, a female employee of the defendant carelessly and negligently approached Mr. Jones from behind, while attempting to make her way through the crowded lobby. Suddenly and without warning, the defendant’s employee struck Mr. Jones from behind, knocking him to the ground. Defendant’s employee also fell to the ground after the impact. Plaintiffs do not know the name of defendant’s employee, but reported the accident to the manager on duty.”
The suit added that Mr. Jones immediately sought medical treatment for his injuries.
“Mr. Jones presented to the Lankenau/Main Line Health Emergency Room shortly after the accident, complaining of left knee and low back pain that was constant, which worsened with movement. Mr. Jones, who had a prior history of back pain requiring epidurals, had his pre-existing back condition severely aggravated by the accident and his fall. Mr. Jones has treated with Temple University Hospital Neurosurgery, Temple University Hospital Pain Management, Ivy Rehab Physical Therapy and Mercy Home Health, in an effort to cure the pain caused by defendant’s employee and the accident,” the suit stated.
“Mr. Jones underwent a lumbar steroid injection after the accident, in an effort to cure the pain caused by defendant’s employee and the accident. At the time of the accident, Mr. Jones was in chronic kidney failure and underwent regular dialysis. As such, Mr. Jones was unable to take pain medication for the pain he rated as ‘shooting and stabbing’ and an 8-10/10 VAS.”
UPDATE
Counsel for all parties mutually stipulated on April 16 that all allegations of recklessness would be dismissed from the complaint without prejudice, along with the entirety of Paragraph 24 (which dealt with a Texas Roadhouse employee whom the suit said had sent a postcard to the husband-plaintiff acknowledging the restaurant was on notice of the accident.)
In an April 22 answer and new matter response to the complaint, the defendant denied the plaintiffs’ allegations in their entirety and provided 18 separate affirmative defenses.
“Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries were caused and/or contributed to, in whole or in part, by the negligence and/or carelessness of persons, parties, and/or organizations other than answering defendant, over whom answering defendant had no control, right of control, or responsibility and was due in no matter whatsoever to any act or failure to act on the part of answering defendant. Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries were caused by the intervening negligence of a third person or persons which was the superseding cause of plaintiffs’ injuries and, therefore, answering defendant is not liable over to the plaintiffs or anyone else. Answering defendant did not have any notice, either actual or constructive, of the claimed dangerous condition, nor would a reasonable inspection have disclosed any such dangerous condition, to the extent one existed, at the time of plaintiffs’ claimed injuries. Any act, conduct, failure to act or misconduct by answering defendant, or by any person for whose acts answering defendant was responsible, did not cause any damages/injuries to the plaintiffs,” the defenses stated, in part.
“Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries may have been caused by the negligence and/or carelessness of plaintiff, and any recovery shall be barred and/or limited by the applicable provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act and the contributory negligence of plaintiff. Plaintiffs are not entitled to delay damages. Plaintiffs failed to mitigate their damages. Answering defendant complied with all applicable statutes, ordinances, and laws. Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs’ claims fail as a matter of law. Answering defendant was not negligent as a matter of law. Plaintiffs’ claims may be barred and/or limited by the Bankruptcy Code. Answering defendant acted with due care and regard at all times relevant hereto. Plaintiffs’ claims should be offset by any collateral source of benefits. Plaintiffs’ claims may be barred by the sudden emergency doctrine. Some or all of the injuries and damages alleged in plaintiffs’ complaint may not arise out of the incident alleged in plaintiffs’ complaint. No dangerous, unsafe or defective condition existed at the subject business premises. Plaintiffs’ claimed injuries and damages are not causally related to the incident in question.”
For counts of negligence and loss of consortium, the plaintiffs are seeking damages in excess of $75,000, together with delay damages and any other amounts to which they are entitled under the law.
The plaintiffs are represented by Kevin M. Blake of Smith Mirabella Blake, in Philadelphia.
The defendant is represented by Jennifer Glazer Shorr of Weber Gallagher Simpson Stapleton Fires & Newby, also in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:24-cv-01295
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com