In addressing the demurrer to the Complaint, the court provided a detailed description of the current status of Pennsylvania law pertaining to slip and fall matters. In reviewing that law, the court noted that, although there are Pennsylvania cases that stand for the proposition that mere evidence of a highly polished floor, standing alone, is sufficient to sustain a negligence claim, other cases confirm that the manner in which the polish or wax was applied and maintained could give rise to a cause of action for negligence in slip and fall matters.
The court found that the Plaintiff stated a valid cause of
action when the Plaintiff alleged that the landowners’ high gloss treatment of
their hardwood stairs amounted to a negligent creation and maintenance of a
hazardous condition. The Plaintiff had additionally alleged that the Defendants
had failed to provide adequate lighting for the slippery stairs and/or to warn
all invitees of the hazardous condition of the stairs.
The Plaintiffs additionally asserted in the Complaint that
one owner stated after the fall that “[w]e usually tell people these stairs
are slippery.”
The court found that, accepting the Plaintiff’s allegations
as true as required by the standard of review for a demurrer, the Plaintiff’s
Complaint stated a cognizable negligence claim.
The court in this matter otherwise sustained the landowner
Defendants’ demurrer to the Plaintiffs’ claim for attorney’s fees given that
the Complaint failed to reference any statutory, contractual, or decisional basis
for the claim for counsel fees. As
such, the court found that any claim for counsel fees in this tort action is
insufficient as a matter of law.
Accordingly, the demurrer to the claim for counsel fees was sustained.
The court also struck the Plaintiff’s specific claims for
dollar amounts for eight (8) separate categories of damages as being
improper. Rather, the court noted that
a prayer for relief should only indicate whether or not the Plaintiff is
demanding compensatory damages in excess of or below the compulsory arbitration
limit in the county.
In the end, the court sustained some of the Defendants’
Preliminary Objections and overruled others.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision by Judge
Nealon may click this LINK.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.