In the case of Meade v. Pawz, No. 6112 Civil 2019 (C.P. Monroe Co. Jan. 29, 2020 Zulick, J.), Judge Arthur K. Zulick sustained a defendant’s preliminary objections to a non-specific slip or trip and fall Complaint but allowed the plaintiff the right to file a Third Amended Complaint.
According to the Opinion, in the plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, the plaintiff generally averred that she “tripped and fell on the dangerous conditions of the Defendant’s property.”
She then asserted in another single paragraph that the defendant’s “allow(ed) a defective floor near the entranceway to the building, a defective rug near the entranceway to the building, a defective step tread dimension, a defective step of the building and a defective entranceway to the building to exist thereon (hereinafter referred to as the “dangerous conditions.”).
|Judge Arthur K. Zulick
The court noted that the Second Amended Complaint was not specific enough to apprise the defendant as to what caused the Plaintiff to fall or whether she had a chain reaction fall down event after encountering numerous alleged defects on the floor, a rug, a step, and/or some other unspecified defect of the entranceway to the building.
In allowing the plaintiff another shot at properly pleading a cause of action, the court cautioned that the allegations of negligence should be directed to a particular defect that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall.
Anyone wishing to read Judge Zulick’s decision in the Meade case may click this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney Paraskevoula Mamounas, of the Allentown, PA office of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer for bringing this case to my attention.
Need help bringing your trip or slip and fall case to a close by way of a settlement. Please consider scheduling a mediation with Cummins Mediation Services. Resume and Fee Schedule available upon request at firstname.lastname@example.org or by calling 570-319-5899.