LANCASTER – Counsel for a pair of plaintiffs, one local and one from South Carolina, who claimed they were struck by a wooden beam which fell from the ceiling as they were dining inside a local Marriott hotel restaurant, have refuted denials of liability for their injuries from a local construction company.
John Stafford Skehan of Lancaster, Pa. and Mary Campbell Skehan of Columbia, S.C. first filed suit in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas on Oct. 16 versus Aimbridge Hospitality, LLC of Plano, Texas, Lancaster Marriott at Penn Square and Marriott International, Inc. of Bethesda, Md., Hawk Industries, Inc. of Littlestown, the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Lancaster, Doe 1, Doe 2 and John Does 3-15.
“On or about Oct. 24, 2021, plaintiffs John Stafford Skehan (“Jack”) and Mary Campbell Skehan (“Mary Campbell”), were lawfully present, as business invitees, seated at a dining table inside Plough restaurant, which is located within the Lancaster Marriott at Penn Square, in the City of Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Jack Skehan and Mary Campbell Skehan are related as brother and sister,” the suit said.
“Aimbridge operates the hotel and restaurant complex (doing business as “Lancaster Marriott at Penn Square”), in the city of Lancaster, Pennsylvania. It is believed, and therefore alleged, that Aimbridge owns the leasehold improvements upon land owned and leased to Aimbridge by the Redevelopment Authority, City of Lancaster. Aimbridge operates approximately 1,500 hotels and restaurants worldwide under license agreements with various brands.”
The suit added that Aimbridge owns the leasehold improvements and business assets of Plough, a restaurant that is within the Lancaster Marriott at Penn Square complex and operates the Lancaster Marriott at Penn Square under franchise, or license, agreement with Marriott.
Furthermore, the suit explained that Marriott permits Aimbridge to use ‘Marriott’ and Marriott’s trademarks on buildings, signs, invoices, menus, stationary, etc., by a contract between the two, giving the public the reasonable belief that Marriott operates the subject hotel complex – and that Hawk Industries, by direction of Aimbridge, designed the interior of Plough restaurant, to include the wooden beams attached to the ceiling.
“Upon information and belief, Aimbridge approved Hawk’s design for Plough restaurant, which included wood beams attached to the ceiling. Plough restaurant was designed, and built, with approximately sixty decorative wood (or, faux wood) beams attached to the ceiling of the dining room. On the aforementioned date, one of the beams detached from Plough’s ceiling and fell, striking Jack Skehan, who had been seated at a table in the dining room. Seated at the same dining table, and within the ‘zone of danger’, was Mary Campbell Skehan, who was grazed by the beam and witnessed the wood beam fall upon her brother, Jack,” the suit stated.
“Upon information and belief, business entity, or person, Doe No. 1 was subcontracted by Hawk to install the wooden beams on the ceiling of Plough restaurant. Upon information and belief, presently unknown business entity Doe No. 2 was the manufacturer of the wooden beams that were installed on the ceiling of Plough restaurant. Upon information and belief, presently unknown business entities, or persons, Does 3-15 provided various services, or performed various actions, or failed to correctly perform certain necessary actions, all of which may have contributed to the wood beam falling from the ceiling of Plough restaurant. As a direct and proximate result of the incident, both plaintiffs were injured, with Jack sustaining lifelong injuries.”
The defendants filed preliminary objections on Nov. 14, 2023, seeking to strike punitive damages from the plaintiffs’ case.
“In Count II of their complaint, plaintiffs allege that defendants acted in a wanton manner and demanding punitive damages for defendants’ actions. In addition to actual damages, punitive damages may be awarded to punish a defendant for outrageous acts and to deter it or others from engaging in similar conduct. Plaintiffs have not averred any facts to establish that defendants engaged in any outrageous, egregious conduct in reckless disregard of plaintiff’s rights or any facts which could possibly lead to punitive damages,” according to the objections.
“In the present case, plaintiffs have failed to allege with sufficient specificity any factual averments regarding any specific acts or alleged omissions on defendants’ part which rise to the level of conduct sufficient to recover for punitive damages. In fact, plaintiffs make no allegations whatsoever in support of their demand for punitive damages. The complaint lacks any factual allegation concerning defendants’ motives or the relationship between plaintiffs and defendants which suggest any evil motive toward plaintiffs. Since plaintiffs have failed to plead any facts which would support a claim of reckless conduct, the entirety of Count II and all claims for punitive damages must be dismissed. Accordingly, defendants respectfully request this Court to enter the accompanying order dismissing with prejudice plaintiffs’ claims for punitive damages against them.”
On Dec. 4, 2023, along with filing an amended version of the complaint, the plaintiffs replied to the defendants’ preliminary objections, seeking to strike their claim for punitive damages.
“Movants seek dismissal with prejudice of plaintiffs’ claims for punitive damages, based on its arguments that the averments for punitive damages are insufficient. As an initial matter and as discussed more fully below, movants apply an incorrect standard – Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(a) to challenge plaintiffs’ averments of wanton and reckless conduct, and under the correct standard – Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(b), plaintiffs’ averments are sufficient. But movants pile on this error with an overreach in the relief requested. Dismissal of punitive damages claims with prejudice at this stage and on these facts is entirely inappropriate,” per the plaintiffs’ reply.
“Competently designed, constructed, installed, and maintained beams do not fall from ceilings. Indeed, movants and all defendants knew or should have known that plaintiffs and similarly situated patrons of the restaurant would be endangered by beams along the ceiling that were faulty and at risk of falling. Any such faulty beam became a projectile targeting patrons below. Plaintiffs expect that discovery will accomplish its purpose of revealing the cause and conduct that caused the beam to fall. At this stage, movants are fairly on notice of plaintiffs’ claims for punitive damages and at the close of discovery have the right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a jury question on punitive damages.”
Defendant Hawk Industries, Inc. answered the complaint on Feb. 5, providing new matter defenses, charging that it was blameless in the events at issue and redirected cross-claim liability to each of its co-defendants.
“Plaintiffs fail to state a claim against defendant upon which relief can be granted. Defendant acted reasonably at all times relevant to the allegations in plaintiffs’ first amended complaint. Any and all claims against defendant are barred by the applicable statute of limitations and/or statute of repose. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, limited and/or reduced in accordance with the statutes of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and/or ordinances governing the area of the alleged occurrence. Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries, damages or losses, if any, arose from and were caused by or contributed to by the intervening and/or suspending acts and conduct of others over whom defendant had no control, and thereby precluding any recovery against defendant. Defendant denies that it proximately caused each and every item of injury and/or damages set forth in plaintiffs’ first amended complaint. The alleged injuries, damages or losses were the result of the actions and/or omissions of the plaintiff and/or other persons and/or entities other than defendant,” the new matter stated.
“Plaintiffs’ claims may be barred or limited if they failed to mitigate their alleged damages. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, limited and/or reduced by virtue of the doctrine of statute of frauds, by virtue of the doctrine of truth and waiver, by virtue of the doctrine of laches and by the economic loss doctrine. Plaintiff may have failed to sue an indispensable party. Defendant did not owe a duty to plaintiff. Defendant breached no alleged duty to plaintiff. Defendant did not have proper and/or sufficient notice of any alleged hazardous condition to prevent the alleged incident. Defendant substantially complied with any relevant contract or agreement. Plaintiffs’ alleged damages may have been caused by a failure to properly maintain the property. Defendant had a very limited scope of work and the work allegedly performed by defendant did not cause or contribute to the alleged harm and/or damages.”
After Lancaster, Pa.-based High Construction Company was added as a defendant through a joinder complaint, the company provided an answer, new matter and cross-claim response denying any liability on its own part, on Feb. 23.
“The joinder complaint should be dismissed in its entirety for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs’ amended complaint should be dismissed in its entirety for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Additional defendant reserves all of the defenses, limitations and rights set forth in the AIA Document A401- 2007 (modified) standard form of agreement with Hawk Industries, Inc. entered into by and between additional defendant and Hawk Industries, Inc. on or about Nov. 17, 2017,” per the new matter.
“The injuries and damages of plaintiffs were the result of the actions and/or omissions of persons and/or entities other than additional defendant. The alleged injuries and damages of plaintiffs, if any, were caused by the intervening wrongdoing of others over whom additional defendant had no control and for which additional defendant is not responsible. The claims in the joinder complaint and/or in the amended complaint of plaintiffs are barred and/or limited to the extent that necessary party or parties to this action were not joined. Additional defendant hereby incorporates by reference as if set forth fully herein each and every affirmative defense asserted by all other defendants to this action. The damages alleged are not recoverable under the applicable law.”
UPDATE
On April 3, the plaintiffs replied to defendant High Construction Company’s answer and new matter, largely denying it as conclusions of law to which no official response was required.
“After reasonable investigation, High Construction Company is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the factual allegations and, accordingly, all such factual allegations are denied. The remaining allegations are denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e) as conclusions of law to which no response is required,” the reply stated, in part.
For counts of negligence, wantonness and negligence – zone of danger, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of the Court, plus interest, costs, attorney’s fees and any other relief that the Court deems just and proper.
The plaintiff is represented by Steven D. Guinter of Dillsburg and J. Nathaniel Holmes of Boles Holmes White, in Birmingham, Ala.
The defendants are represented by Steven H. Eichler of Margolis Edelstein and Seth J. Schwartz of Marshall Dennehey, both in Philadelphia, Brian G. Welsh and Joseph J. McAlee of the Law Offices of Jerry S. Eisenberg, in Mount Laurel, N.J. and John W. Dornberger of Post & Schell, in Harrisburg.
Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas case CI-23-07346
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com