PHILADELPHIA – The City of Philadelphia has countered a local woman’s claims that she suffered a variety of injuries due to a sidewalk fall which took place in front of Independence Hall, by redirecting cross-claim liability for the incident to the federal government.
Cassandra Johnson of Philadelphia first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on March 27 versus the National Park Service’s Department of the Interior in Philadelphia, the United States of America in Washington, D.C. and the City of Philadelphia.
“At all times material hereto, defendants did own and/or operate and/or manage and/or control and/or possess the property including the sidewalk located at or near 501 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. On or about July 28, 2021, and for some time prior thereto, defendants, acting by and through their agents, servants, workmen and/or employees, acting as aforesaid carelessly and negligently allowed a cracked and/or uneven and/or unlevel portion of the sidewalk to remain at the aforesaid location, for an unreasonable period of time,” the suit stated.
“On or about July 28, 2021, plaintiff Cassandra Johnson, while an invitee at the aforesaid location, did sustain injury by reason of coming in contact with the aforementioned dangerous conditions at the aforesaid location, causing plaintiff the injuries that form the basis for this action. The aforesaid accident was due solely to the negligence and carelessness of the defendant, acting as aforesaid, and was due in no manner whatsoever to any act or failure to act on the part of the plaintiff.”
The suit added that the plaintiff’s injuries were caused solely by and were the direct and proximate result of the negligence of the defendants, which consisted, of the following: (a) Allowing and/or causing a dangerous and defective condition to exist of the sidewalk, of which defendants knew or should have known by the exercise of reasonable care; (b) Said dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injuries which plaintiff sustained; (c) Failing to inspect the sidewalk at reasonable intervals to determine the condition thereof; and (d) That the defendants knew, or should have known, of the existence of said dangerous condition, among other examples of negligent conduct.
“Plaintiff Cassandra Johnson, as a direct and proximate result of the wrongful and negligent conduct of the defendant, suffered the following injuries, which have resulted in the permanent loss of a bodily function, including but not limited to: Closed head injury, multiple facial abrasions and contusions resulting in skin discoloration and permanent scarring, back injury, musculoskeletal injuries, as well as other injuries as may be diagnosed by plaintiff’s health care providers, all of which injuries have in the past, and may in the future, cause plaintiff great pain and suffering,” the suit said.
“As a further result of this accident, plaintiff Cassandra Johnson has been or will be required to receive and undergo medical attention and care and to expend various sums of money and to incur various expenses for the injuries she has suffered, the cost or reasonable value of which is, or according to the advice of plaintiff’s treating physician may be, in excess of $1,500, and may be obliged to continue to expend such sums or incur such expenditures for an indefinite time in the future.”
The suit also provided that four months prior to the complaint’s filing, on Nov. 27, 2023, defendant National Park Service-Department of the Interior denied the plaintiff’s claim.
UPDATE
In a May 6 answer to the case from the City of Philadelphia, the City denied the plaintiff’s allegations and pointed to the U.S. government as the party responsible for the incident, through cross-claim liability.
“The City of Philadelphia asserts all of the defenses, immunities, and limitations of damages available to it under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, and avers that the plaintiff’s remedies are limited exclusively thereto.
The Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, provides in 42 Pa. C.S.A. Section 8541 that a political subdivision shall not be liable for any damages on account of any injury to a person or property caused by any act or omission of the political subdivision or an employee thereof, unless said injury occurs as a result of one of the eight activities enumerated in 42 C.S.A. Section 8542 of said Act. The activities of the City of Philadelphia averred in the plaintiff’s civil action are clearly not included in the above mentioned eight categories. Therefore, it is averred that, viewed in light of the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, plaintiff’s civil action fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. If it is determined that defendant City of Philadelphia, is liable on the plaintiff’s cause of action, the defendant avers that the plaintiff’s recovery should be eliminated or reduced in accordance with the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act,” the answer’s defenses stated.
“The defendant further avers that by plaintiff’s actions at the date, time, and place stated in the plaintiff’s Civil Action, plaintiff did assume the risk of any and all injuries and/or damages which plaintiff is alleged to have suffered. It is averred that the appropriate statute of limitations has elapsed since the accrual of the plaintiff’s cause of action and the institution of suit. Therefore, said action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. It is averred that plaintiff failed to give the City of Philadelphia, a municipality, a proper six months written notice of the alleged claim as required by the Act of Oct. 5, 1980, No. 142, P.L. 693, 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. Section 5522 et seq., whereby, said claim is barred.”
The answer’s defenses again redirected responsibility for the incident to the federal government.
“The City of Philadelphia avers that the premises described in the complaint and the situs were owned, possessed or controlled by the United States of America; that it was its duty to keep and maintain said situs abutting said premises in a reasonably safe condition; that if there was any unsafe or hazardous condition thereon, it was due to its carelessness and negligence; and that if the complainant was injured as alleged, it was due solely to the negligence and carelessness of the said parties,” the defense said.
“It is further averred that the United States of America is primarily and solely liable, and in the event that a verdict should be rendered in favor of the complainant against the defendant City of Philadelphia the City of Philadelphia demands judgment in its favor in the amount of said verdict by way of contribution or indemnity against the said abutting property owner and/or tenant.”
For multiple counts of negligence, the plaintiff is seeking judgment in her favor and, jointly and severally, compensatory damages commensurate with her losses.
The plaintiff is represented by Frank Bizzari III of Clearfield & Kofsky, in Philadelphia.
Defendant City of Philadelphia is represented by Randy Kim of the City of Philadelphia’s Law Department.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:24-cv-01304
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com