Slip and Fall Case at Waterpark Allowed to Slide Past a Motion to Dismiss

In the case of Ahmed v. Kalahari Resorts & Conventions-Poconos, No. 3:24-CV-00851-JKM (M.D. Pa. Nov. 7, 2024 Munley, J.), the court denied a Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, Motion for a More Definite Statement, in a slip and fall case involving an indoor water park.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff alleged that he slipped and fell in the waterpark area allegedly due to the fact that the steps were not properly treated and were covered with mold or algae.

In reviewing the Plaintiff’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss, the court found that the Plaintiff had pled sufficient facts regarding his status as a business invitee and the alleged breach of a duty of reasonable care on the part of the Defendant. The court found that, if the Plaintiff’s alleged facts were accepted as true, as they must be at this stage of the proceedings, the Plaintiff had sufficiently provided a short and plain statement of the claims presented demonstrating that he is entitled to relief in accordance with F.R.C.P. 8.

Accordingly, the court denied the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

Relative to the Defendant’s Motion for a More Definite Statement of the Plaintiff’s claim pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(e), the court agreed with the defense argument that the Plaintiff’s Complaint was too vague or ambiguous in that it did not state with specificity the location of the stairs upon which the Plaintiff allegedly fell.

In response to this motion, the Plaintiff indicated that he would provide photographs of the exact location of his fall during the course of discovery.

Judge Munley ruled that, given that the Plaintiff had admitted that he evidently knew which steps he fell upon, and given that the location of the steps at issue could affect how the different Defendants named in this lawsuit might respond to the Complaint, the court granted the Motion for More Definite Statement and directed the Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint to more specifically assert where the Plaintiff allegedly fell on the premises.

Judge Munley otherwise raised an issue of jurisdiction sua sponte. The court noted that it could not determine from the Complaint whether the court had jurisdiction.

In this matter, the Plaintiff had alleged that jurisdiction was based on the diversity jurisdiction statute. However, the Complaint did not list the citizenship of the parties, but only the residency of the parties.

The court noted that residency and citizenship do not have the same meaning for purposes of the diversity statute. As such, the Plaintiff was directed to pile a more specific Complaint in order to properly allege the citizenship of all of the parties named in the Complaint so that the court could assure itself that jurisdiction was proper.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Source: Article – “Slip-And-Fall Suit Cleared to Proceed Against Kalahari Indoor Waterpark.” By Riley Brennan Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Nov. 8, 2024).