PITTSBURGH – A Western Pennsylvania man has reiterated claims arguing that during his stay at a Pittsburgh Days Inn hotel, he suffered a broken hip after exiting the shower in his room.
Michael Conforti of Rymersburg first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Nov. 22, 2023 versus Days Inn by Wyndham Pittsburgh-Harmarville of Pittsburgh and K&R Hotels II, LLC, of New Castle, Pa.
“The defendants, individually or collectively provided hospitality services to individuals in Allegheny County. Defendants owe a duty of care to its guests to protect them from foreseeable risks and harm. On Jan. 13, 2022, the defendants’ provided hospitality services to the plaintiff,” the suit stated.
“At all times material hereto, in the room in which plaintiff stayed, there existed a dangerous fall hazard condition consisting of a bathtub which was elevated from the ground floor thus presenting an unexpected drop as a person exits the tub. On Jan. 13, 2022, plaintiff had showered and as he exited the tub, he was caused to fall violently to the ground due to the large step-down that was not even with the elevated tub floor.”
The suit continued that prior to Jan. 13, 2022, the defendants were aware of the risk associated with the bathtub described herein, as guests had tripped and fallen in the shower on prior occasions.
“As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned accident, plaintiff sustained the following injuries, some or all of which are or may be permanent: Fracture to the right hip requiring surgery, severe pain in and about the hips and other injuries as the medical records may reveal or which have yet to be diagnosed,” the suit said.
“As a direct and proximate result of the incident described, plaintiff sustained the following damages, some or all of which are or may be permanent: He has endured, and will continue to endure great pain, suffering, inconvenience, embarrassment, mental anguish, monetary expenditures for the care of his injury, and emotional and psychological trauma. He has been, and will be required to, expend large sums of money for medical treatment and care, medical supplies, rehabilitation and therapeutic treatment, medicines and other attendant services. His general health, strength and vitality have been impaired, and he has been and will in the future be unable to enjoy various pleasures of life that he previously enjoyed.”
The defendants answered the complaint on Feb. 10 and denied liability for Conforti’s injuries, in addition to presenting numerous new matter defenses.
“Defendants hereby incorporate by reference every paragraph and averments of its answer previously stated as if the same were set forth at length herein. If applicable based upon facts developed through discovery or at the time of trial, defendant hereby avers that the causes of action and injuries plaintiff claims, occurred more than two years before this action was filed and are precluded by the provisions of 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 5524, and other applicable statutes of limitation. Defendant pleads entitlement to set-off of any money paid or payable to plaintiff pursuant to any policy of insurance applicable to this incident. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The plaintiff’s injuries, if any, were caused or contributed to by the negligence, carelessness and recklessness of others over whom defendant had no control and for which it is not responsible,” the new matter said.
“The direct and proximate cause of any injuries and/or damages suffered by plaintiff was the contributory/comparative negligence of plaintiff in failing to exercise that degree of care which a reasonably prudent person would have exercised under the same or similar circumstances for their own safety and well-being. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate damages as required by the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and, therefore, plaintiff’s recovery is barred or substantially reduced. If plaintiff requests damages for delay, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 238, defendant challenges the applicability and constitutionality of said Rule and places it at issue. If plaintiff suffered any injuries or damages as alleged, they were caused solely and primarily by plaintiffs own carelessness, recklessness and negligence and plaintiff’s recovery is barred or otherwise limited and/or reduced in accordance with the provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, the terms of which Act are incorporated herein by reference.”
The new matter added that the plaintiff’s medical care is not reasonable, medically necessary and/or related to the occurrence alleged in the complaint and if the plaintiff sustained injuries as alleged in the complaint, such injuries being expressly denied, then said injuries were not proximately caused by an act or failure to act by defendant.
“Defendant denies that a dangerous and/or defective condition existed as alleged and further deny that defendant had knowledge, either actual or constructive notice, of the alleged condition or that they, with reasonable diligence, would have notice of the alleged condition and/or damages. Answering defendants deny that they owed any duty to the plaintiff. Defendant reserves the right to amend their answer with new matter to the complaint to include any defenses which may become available during discovery,” the new matter added.
UPDATE
On April 25, the plaintiff replied to the answer and new matter, denying it in its entirety.
“Paragraph 17 of defendant’s new matter is an incorporation paragraph to which no response is required. To the extent that any averments of Paragraphs 18 through 31 of defendants’ new matter constitute conclusions of law, no response to said averments is necessary. To the extent that any averments of what Paragraphs 18 through 31 of defendant’s new matter constitute averments of fact, said averments are denied generally pursuant to the provisions of Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure No. 1029(e) and also under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure No. 1029 (c) on the grounds that after reasonable investigation, plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments. By way of further response, plaintiff hereby re-avers and incorporates his complaint as if fully set forth herein,” the reply stated.
For two counts of negligence, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of the jurisdictional limits for compulsory arbitration, together with court costs, interest and all other relief the Court may deem just and equitable.
The plaintiff is represented by G. Christopher Apessos of Apessos Law, in Pittsburgh.
The defendants are represented by Kevin R. O’Malley and Stephen J. Magley and of O’Malley & Magley, also in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-23-013410
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com