LANCASTER – After a local woman alleged that her former landlord’s negligence resulted in the ceiling of her prior domicile collapsing on her, due to that landlord’s failure to repair a leak in her living room ceiling, the plaintiff has settled her case.
Patricia Scott first filed suit in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas on Oct. 5, 2022 versus Huyard Properties, LLC. Both parties are of Lancaster.
“The facts and occurrences hereinafter related took place on March 6, 2021, at or about 10:30 a.m. in the living room at the premises. At that time and place, the premises and improvements thereon, were owned by defendant Huyard Properties, LLC. At that time and place, plaintiff was a tenant who resided at the premises through a lease agreement with defendant Huyard Properties, LLC,” the suit said.
“Beginning in 2020, water began leaking from the ceiling in plaintiff’s living room to the extent that buckets needed to be placed to catch the leaking water and cracks began to form in the ceiling. Plaintiff reasonably believes that the leak in her living room ceiling emanated from upstairs in her rental property. Plaintiff notified defendant via telephone and text messaging on several occasions prior to March 6, 2021, about the leak in her living room ceiling, specifically to a Dave Huyard.”
The suit added that though representatives of the defendant came to the plaintiff’s residence, they both allegedly did not see the leak and made no attempt to repair it, which constituted negligence on their part.
“At or about that time and place, plaintiff was in her living room and on the couch in front of the television, when the ceiling collapsed on her as a result of the leak. As a result of the defendant’s negligence, plaintiff suffered painful and severe injuries to her nerves, bones and soft tissues, which include but are not limited to, left and right knee injuries. By reason of the aforesaid injuries suffered by plaintiff, she has suffered a heightened possibility that she will suffer other or additional injury in the future, and claim is made therefore,” the suit stated.
In preliminary objections filed on Nov. 21, 2022, the defendant looked to have the plaintiff’s allegations stricken for lack of specificity under the law.
“Rule 1019 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure requires that, when pleading a claim based upon an agreement, it must be alleged whether the agreement is oral or written, and, if written, a copy of the writing must be attached to the pleading. In the complaint, plaintiff alleges that she was defendant’s tenant subject to a lease agreement. However, plaintiff has not asserted whether that agreement was written or oral,” according to the objections.
“Plaintiff also did not attach any written agreement to the pleading in support of her assertion nor indicated that the agreement was not accessible to her. Thus, plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 1019, and her complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 1028(a)(2) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. In the alternative, plaintiff should be required to amend her complaint to comply with Rule 1019.”
The objections continued that Paragraph 28 of the complaint should also be stricken for inadequate specificity.
“Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1028(a)(3) permits preliminary objections on the grounds that there is insufficient specificity in a pleading. The seminal case of Connor v. Allegheny General Hospital, stands for the proposition that general or insufficient averments in a complaint should be remedied by preliminary objection. When determining the sufficiency of the complaint, a court should strike any averment that presents a risk of future, unexpected amendment or expansion or amplification after the statute of limitations has expired. Generic references to laws, statutes, or regulations, without specific reference to the precise statute or regulation allegedly violated, does not conform to Connor v. Allegheny Hospital,” per the objections.
“Based on the above, certain allegations contained in plaintiff’s complaint are insufficiently specific and open the door for future, unexpected amendment and should be stricken. In Paragraph 28, plaintiff alleges that ‘defendant’s actions and or omissions were in violation of laws and regulations…including the Property Maintenance Code of the City of Lancaster…’ The generic reference in Paragraph 28 violations of laws and regulations without reference to the precise laws or regulations that defendant allegedly violated is improper and not of the required specificity.”
After an amended complaint was filed on Dec. 7, 2022, the defendant filed an answer along with new matter on Dec. 30, 2022 – which admitted the plaintiff did report a ceiling leak and collapse on the day in question, but added that the leaks were not in the vicinity of where the portion of the ceiling fell, the area where the ceiling fell did not have any plumbing above it and denied that the water leaks in the ceiling caused or had any impact on the incident complained of.
“Plaintiff’s alleged injuries and damages, if any, which are specifically denied, may have been pre-existing, either in whole or in part, and are not causally related to the alleged incident giving rise to the present litigation. Plaintiff may have failed to mitigate her damages. No acts or failures to act on the part of the answering defendant or any of its employees, agents, or principals was a substantial factor or factual cause bringing about the incident or any of the injuries alleged in the plaintiffs’ first amended complaint. As discovery may show, plaintiff’s claims may be barred or reduced by the affirmative defenses of accord and satisfaction, waiver, estoppel, res judicata, collateral estoppel, issue preclusion, claim preclusion and/or statute of limitations, and answering defendant hereby pleads these affirmative defenses provisionally. As discovery may show, plaintiff’s claims may be barred, in whole or in part, by the defenses set forth in Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1030(a), which are incorporated herein by reference,” the new matter stated.
“Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Negligent acts or omissions of individuals or entities other than answering defendant constituted superseding causes of the damages alleged by plaintiff. Additional defendant did not breach any duty that may have been owed to plaintiff. Answering defendant was not negligent or careless with respect to the care and maintenance of the premises. Answering defendant had no knowledge or notice of any dangerous condition on the premises.”
In a Jan. 10, 2023 reply to the new matter, the plaintiff reiterated her claims.
“These paragraphs contain no averments of fact, only conclusions of law to which no reply is required. To the extent that a court determines that this paragraph contains any averments of fact, the same are specifically denied. By way of further response, all of plaintiff’s injuries were caused as a direct result of the acts and/or failure to act of defendant and/or any of its employees, agents or principals,” the reply stated.
UPDATE
On May 17, plaintiff counsel filed to mark the case as settled. Terms of the settlement were not revealed.
“Kindly mark the above-captioned matter settled, discontinued and ended,” the praecipe stated.
The plaintiff was represented by Jonathan R. Schnaars of Freeburn & Hamilton, in Harrisburg.
The defendant was represented by Joshua J. Bovender and Amanda L. Hennessey of Thomas Thomas & Hafer, in Camp Hill.
Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas case CI-22-06132
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com