Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-01338 JACQUELINE SHEFFLER IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA NO, 1 q - /.j J;'~:-Y r;.~ Plaintiff V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW KEYSTONE APPLE INC., t/d/b/a APPLEBEE'S NEIGHBORHOOD GRILL AND BAR Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiff, Jacqueline Sheffler, is an adult individual and citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania residing in Chambersburg, Franklin county, Pennsylvania. 2, Defendant, Keystone Apple, Inc., is a corporation authorized to do business in Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania trading and doing business as Applebee's Neighborhood Grill and Bar, located at 6055 Carlisle pike, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. 3. The Defendant also owns the property on which the restaurant operates, including the parking lot and sidewalks, and is responsible for their maintenance, inspection and safety, 4. The facts and occurrences hereinafter related took place on or about August 19,1997, at approximately 10:30 a.m., on sidewalk on Defendant's property. (The Defendant describes the exact location of the accident as a triangle that is set between the in and out lanes of the parking lot.) 1 5. At that time and place, Plaintiff, Jacqueline Sheffler, was lawfully walking on the property owned by Keystone Apple, Inc., trading and doing business as Applebee/s Neighborhood Grill and Bar. 6. At that time and place, Plaintiff, Jacqueline Sheffler, tripped and fell over a protruding pipe or sign post that had been allowed by the Defendant to dangerously protrude from the sidewalk, thereby creating a non-obvious tripping hazard. (The Defendant describes the sign post as sticking up approximately six inChes.) 7. Plaintiff, Jacqueline Sheffler, was thereby thrown off of her balance and landed on her face, left wrist and knees on the sidewalk. S. Defendant, Keystone Apple, Inc., trading and doing business as Applebee's Neighborhood Gri 11 and Bar, owed the Plaintiff, Jacqueline Sheffler, a duty to inspect, maintain, repair and warn about the tripping hazard and failed to do so. Defendant did not remove the tripping hazard until after the Plaintiff's accident. 9. As a direct result of the Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff, Jacqueline Sheffler, tripped and fell, sustaining injuries which include, but are not limited to, a head injury, broken glasses, injury to her left wrist, knee, and right side of her face. 2 COUNT I Jaoaueline Sheffler v. Keystone ADPle. Ino.. t/d/b/a ApPlebee's Neiahborhood Grill and Bar 10. Paragraphs 1 through 9 are incorporated herein by reference. 11. Plaintiff, Jacqueline Sheffler, was owed a duty of care by Defendant Keystone Apple, Inc., trading and doing business as Applebee's Neighborhood Grill and Bar, to keep and maintain its premises in a safe condition. 12. The aforesaid fall and resulting injuries herein sustained by Plaintiff, Jacqueline Sheffler, are the direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Keystone Apple, Inc., trading and doing business as Applebee's Neighborhood Grill and Bar, in failing to properly maintain, repair, warn and inspect its property by allowing the aforesaid post to protrude out of the sidewalk/triangle on its parking lot. This post created a dangerous tripping hazard that was not obvious to persons lawfully on the property. The Defendant knew or should have know about it and should have corrected the condition or warned about its presence before Plaintiff's accident but failed to do so until after the accident. 13. Plaintiff, Jacqueline Sheffler, sustained painful and severe injuries, as a result of the aforesaid accident, which include, but are not limited to, a head injury, broken glasses, injury to her left wrist, knee, and right side of her face, for which claim is made therefor. 3 14. By reason of the aforesaid injuries sustained by Plaintiff, Jacqueline Sheffler, she incurred liability for medical treatment, medications and similar miscellaneous expenses in an effort to restore herself to health, and claim is made therefor. 15. As a result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff, Jacqueline Sheffler, has undergone and in the future will undergo great physical and mental pain and sUffering, great inconvenience in carrying out her daily activities, loss of life's pleasures and enjoyment and claim is made therefor. 16. As a result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff, Jacqueline Sheffler, has been and will in the future be subject to great humiliation and embarrassment, and claim is made therefor. 17. Plaintiff, Jacqueline Sheffler, continues to be plagued by persistent problems, and therefore, avers that her injuries may be of a permanent nature, causing residual problems for the remainder of her lifetime, and claim is made therefor. 18. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid accident and injuries, Plaintiff has sustained not only wage loss and future loss of earnings, but may incur a permanent loss of wage earning capacity, and claim is made therefor. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jacqueline Sheffler, demands judgment against Keystone Apple, Inc., trading and doing business as Applebee's Neighborhood Grill and Bar in an amount in excess of 4 SilER I FF' S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 1999-01338 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND SHEFFLER JACQUELINE VS. KEYSTONE APPLE INC ET AL CHRIS EVANS , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of CUMBERLAND County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within NOTICE AND COMPLAINT was served upon KEYSTONE APPLE INC TIDIBIA APPLBEE'S NEIGHBORHOOD GRILL the defendant, at 16:00 HOURS, on the lOth day of March 1999 at ATTN: STEPHEN H. DAVENPORT 1205 MANOR DRIVE SUITE 201 MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 ,CUMBERLAND County, Pennsylvania, by handing to GREG SARABOK (CONTROLLER) a true and attested copy of the NOTICE AND COMPLAINT and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docklilting Serv~ce Affidavit Surcharge 18.00 6.82 .00 8.00 So anS~lers :._ _, ~ ?:'~f~t .t(. lnomas .t\.ll.ne, bner.l..I:I: ~,j.c::.ts4 AN,,"O . '0""" ~ 03/11/~;9~ (~ ep r) Sworn and subscribed to bef~e me .. 0' cy. ~ ~ ". CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that Con this day I served a true IInd correct copy of the foregoing document by first class mail, postage pre-paid, addressed to the following: Michael Navitsky, Esquire Anglno & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Date: ~(()rVl.(1 1\ l~ ~, 1999 squire :54766.1 ...... >- -- ~ .-J ,.,- t.: U)(', ~)"'- t-< J4', --' ...., cg~.. .....1 U.,l ~ C..,; _J1: ( 0:- " -<- ~.- . ,-- - tJ.. C' ~.) 0 {.:"lo '" Defendant's property. To the contrary, Defendant believes that the alleged Incident occurred on a cement triangle set between the entrance and exit lanes to Defendant's business. 5. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 5 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that on August 19, 1997 at approximately 10:30 a.m., Plaintiff Jacqueline Sheffler was lawfully walking on property owned by Defendant and proof Is demanded. 6. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 6 constitute legal conclusions to which no response Is required. By way of further answer, it Is specifically denied that the Defendant permitted any dangerous condition to exist on its premises. Furthermore, it Is specifically denied that any condition with which Plaintiff was confronted was a 'non-obvious tripping hazard' and proof Is demanded. With respect to the allegation that on or about August 19, 1997 at approximately 10:30 a.m., Plaintiff Jacqueline Sheffler tripped and fell over a protruding pipe or sign post, the allegation is specifically denied since after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or Information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment and proof is demanded. 7. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering Defendant is without knowledge or Information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment and proof is demanded. 8. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 8 concerning the duties owed by Defendant to Plaintiff constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required. By way of further answer, it Is specifically denied that any duty was owed to the Plaintiff In this incident andlor that any non-obvious tripping hazard was present on the Defendant's premises on the date of the alleged incident. It is admitted that a portion of a sign post which had been present 2 In the cement triangle let between the entrance and exit lanes to the restaurant was removed lometlme after Plalntiff'1 alleged Incident. 9. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 9 constitutes legal conclusions to which no response Is required. By way of further answer, It Is specifically denied that Defendant was negligent In any manner whatsoever. Furthermore. with respect to the Injuries allegedly sustained by the Plaintiff. the averments are specifically denied since after reasonable Investigation, Defendant Is without knowledge or Information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments and proof Is demanded. COUNT I JACQUELINE SHEFFLER v. KEYSTONE APPLE. INC..lId/b/a APPLEBEE'S NEIGHBORHOOD GRILL AND BAR 10. Paragraphs 1-9 of Defendant's Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint are incorporated hereby by reference. 11. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 11 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required. By way of further answer, Defendant's duty to Plaintiff is defined by her status. In this instance, Defendant has no knowledge as to why Plaintiff was walking along the cement triangle as opposed to walking along with pedestrian walkway. As Defendant's duties will be defined by Plaintiff's status and location at the time of the accident, the averments are specifically denied and proof is demanded. 12. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 12 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required. By way of further answer, It is specifically denied that Defendant was negligent in any manner whatsoever. Furthermore, it is specifically denied that Defendant failed to properly maintain, repair, warn and inspect its property. Furthermore, it is specifically denied that the protruding post constituted a non-obvious dangerous tripping hazard to persons lawfully on the property and proof Is demanded. With respect to the allegation that Defendant should 3 _. have corrected the condition or warned about Its presence before Plaintiffs accident, the avermento are specifically denied since Plaintiff was traversing In an area where she lIad no right to be and the post was obvious to anyone exercising reasonable care. 13. Denied. After reasonable Investigation, Defendant Is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments and proof is demanded. 14. Denied. After reasonable Investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments and proof Is demanded. 15. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or Information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments and proof is demanded. 16. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments and proof is demanded. 17. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments and proof is demanded. 18. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments and proof Is demanded. WHEREFORE, Defendant Keystone Apple, Inc., tJdlbla Applebee's Neighborhood Grill and Bar respectfully requests that the Complaint be dismissed and judgment be entered against Plaintiff. NEW MATTER 19. Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. 20. Defendant was not negligent, careless or reckless. 21. Any acts or omissions of Defendant were not substantial causes or factors of the SUbject incident andlor did not result in the losses alleged by the Plaintiff. 4 22. The Incident and/or damages described In Plaintiff's Complaint were caused or contributed to by the Plaintiff. 23. The negligent acts or omissions of other Individuals and/or entities constitute Intervening, superseding causes of the damages and/or Injuries alleged to have been sustslned by the Plaintiff. 24. Plaintiff's cause of action Is barred by the contributory negligence of Plaintiff. 25. Plaintiff's claims are limited or otherwise barred by application of Pennsylvania's Comparative Negligence Act, 42 Pa. C.S. ~7102. 26. The Injuries and damages allegedly sustained by the Plaintiff were caused by her contributory negligence and carelessness as follows: (a) In falling to walk in an area designated for pedestrians; (b) In attempting to traverse a cement triangle located between the the exit/entrance lanes to Defendant's restaurant, which area was not designated for pedestrian traffic; (c) In falling to watch where she was walking; (d) In falling to maintain a proper lookout; (e) In failing to use due caution or care under the circumstances, including the failure to observe an open and obvious condition; (f) In falling to discover andlor observe the alleged defect andlor the alleged dangerous condition complained of; (g) In falling to take precaution to avoid injury; and (h) In falling to take an alternate path. 27. Defendant owed no duty to the Plaintiff. 28. Plaintiff was neither a business invitee nor a licensee at the time of the alleged incident. 5 .... (I) C.: h; . ~. ~ .~ lit'.; ( , -. I; ~l . " l' ,., , '" ll' .--j, f,.: " I. - \... I, ". II r.' ~ U "~ V - Plaintiff's injuries. No ono else was negligent or contributed to those injuries. No other conduct constitutes an intervening or superseding cause of Plaintiff's damages. Plaintiff was not neg ligent. 24. The allegations constitute conclusions of law to Which no response is required. To the extent that any response is required, said allegations are denied. Plaintiff was not negligent. 25. The allegations constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that any response is required, said allegations are denied. Plaintiff was not negligent, 26. The allegations constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that any response is required, said allegations are denied. Plaintiff was not negligent or careless, Plaintiff further responds with specif ici ty to the following allegations: a. Denied. Plaintiff was walking in an area designated for pedestrians. b. Denied. The area upon which Plaintiff was walking at the time of the accident is designated for pedestrian traffic and is even provided with a handicap ramp. c. Denied. Plaintiff was watching where she was walking. She was also looking at Defendants' restaurant, as any reasonable and prudent person would do. d. Denied. Plaintiff maintained a proper look out. 2 e. Denied. Plaintiff used due caution and care under the circumstances. Defendants oign post was not open and obvious. . It represented a dangerous tripping hazard. f, Denied. Plaintiff was not negligent in discovering or observing the tripping hazard as she was proceeding with due caution and care and acted reasonably and prudently at all material times. q. Denied. Plaintiff took every reasonable precaution to avoid injury. h. Denied. Plaintiff reasonably proceeded along a reasonable path, particularly so under the circumstances. 27. The allegations constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that any response is required, said allegations are denied. Defendant owed a duty to the Plaintiff. 28. The allegations constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that any response is required, said allegations are denied. Plaintiff was a business invitee or licensee at the time of the incident. 29. The allegations constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that any response is required, said allegations are denied. Defendants' defective premises was neither open nor obvious. 30. The allegation that Defendants had no notice of the dangerous condition on the premises is specifically denied since after reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or 3 >- ll) b. cr; c.:: i-" ~- ::J -1; lJJ~~ ..3 (-):.? ~!t"; .'- j1~ ~.t :": ,,- r'l(-~ <"> &Jk I ':;2 if! ~.I.; >- ll'..!.J ""::: ~.!d (1.. r-=- - I,~~ en :5 C1 0' U ,"~., " . .. . ....." . '" , ._~ ,~ :/) I".", >- c::) G"": <1; I.J: ;S: .' -., tuQ c.v -~ (.)'c .~1lf p'=r;.. ~ .'-...-J. (.l-. '-'..t 'T)t:;: c;:, ".~~= Q" . I'" u'c<- .d?; ~~!' ~.. .1.. "e,;; Jl:Cl j-. "- :~(l. .... ~:: u. n-, 0 :.:J 0-, () " JACQUELINE SHEFFLER Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANI~ NO. 99-1338 - Civil ~~ omL """ON - LAW ~~ V. KEYSTONE APPLE INC., t/d/b/a APPLEBEE'S NEIGHBORHOOD GRILL AND BAR Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PETITION AND STIPULATION TO AMEND COMPLAIN~ Plaintiff and Defendant, thro-..lgh undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate to the following amendments to the Complaint: 1. The caption of the case should read Jacaueline Sheffler. tiff v. Daven ort's Famil Limited Partne shi a d Ke sto e Ie Inc. lebee's Nei hborhood Grill and Bar and request that the Prothonotary amend the caption accordingly. 2. Paragraph three of the Complaint should read as follows: "The Defendant, Davenport's Family Limited Partnership, owns the property on which the restaurant operates, including the parking lot and sidewalks, and leased this property to Keystone Apple, Inc., t/d/b/a Applebee's Neighborhood Grill and Bar, which lease was in effect at the time of Plaintiff's accident, and the Defendants are therefore responsible for their maintenance, inspection and safety. 3. The parties stipulation that, throughout the body of the Complaint and reference to the Defendant, Keystone Apple, Inc. t/d/b/a Applebee's Neighborhood Grill and Bar, should be amended to 149467/JKW q; . ...' ....'1 "- ... ~ '-l ,1 ~ F r , fr. -~ p t~;~.! ~:: ~i :c (.- t:.- - 1',--: "'- cr'" LUL.'. \.0 tit.!: I ;!:: lL. o 0'> cr. >- .,:: :;:: al co: >- ~ :.)~ ;)--" c,::.:: .~)~ /;i~ ~)l~ -'" ::> u Information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment and proof Is demanded, rurthermore, It Is specifically denied that any such Incident occurred on the 'sidewalk' of Defendants' property. To the contrary, Defendants believe that the alleged Incident occurred on a cement triangle set betwsen the entrance and exit lanes to Defendants' business. 5, Denied, The averments of Paragraph 5 constitute legal conclusions to which no response Is required, By way of further answer, it Is specifically denied that on August 19, 1997 at approximately 10:30 a,m" Plaintiff Jacqueline Sheffler was lawfully walking on property owned by Defendants and proof Is demanded, 6. Denied, The averments of Paragraph 6 constitute legal conclusions to which no response Is required, By way of further answer, it Is specifically denied that the Defendants permitted any dangerous condition to exist on its premises, Furthermore, it Is specifically denied that any condition with which Plaintiff was confronted was a 'non-obvious tripping hazard' and proof Is demanded, With respect to the allegation that on or about August 19, 1997 at approximately 10:30 a,m" Plaintiff Jacqueline Sheffler tripped and fell over a protruding pipe or Sign post, the allegation is specifically denied since after reasonable Investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment and proof Is demanded, 7, Denied, After reasonable Investigation, answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment and proof Is demanded, 8, Denied, The averments of Paragraph 8 conceming the duties owed by Defendants to Plaintiff constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required, By way of further answer, it Is speCifically denied that any duty was owed to the Plaintiff In this incident and/or that any non-obvious tripping hazard was present on the Defendants' premises on the 2 dlte of the IlIeged Incident. It Is Idmitted that I portion of a sign poat which hid been present In the cement triangle set between the entrlnce and exit lanes to the reateul'lnt WIS removed sometlmelfter Plaintiffs alleged Incident. 9, Denied. The averments of Plragraph 9 constitutes legal concluslona to which no response Is required, By way of further answer, It Is specifically denied that Defendants were negligent In any manner whatsoever, Furthermore, with respect to the Injuries allegedly sustained by the Plaintiff, the averments aie specifically denied since efter reasonable Investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief es to the truth of the averments and proof Is demanded, COUNT I JACQUELINE SHEFFLER v. DAVENPORT'S FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND KEYSTONE APPLE. INC.. t1d/b/a APPLEBEE'S NEIGHBORHOOD GRILL AND BAR 10, Paragraphs 1.9 of Defendants' Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint are Incorporated hereby by reference, 11, Denied, The averments of Paragraph 11 constitute legal conclusions to which no response Is required, By way of further answer, Defendants' duty to Plaintiff Is defined by her status, In this instance, Defendants have no knowledge as to why Plaintiff was walking along the cement triangle as opposed to walking along with pedestrian walkway. As Defendants' duties will be defined by Plaintiffs status and location at the time of the accident, the averments are specifically denied and proof is demanded, 12, Denied, The averments of Paragraph 12 constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required, By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Defendants were negligent In any manner whatsoever, Furthermore, it is specifically denied that Defendants failed to properiy maintain, repair, warn and inspect its property, Furthermore, it is specifically denied that the protruding post constituted a non-obvious dangerous tripping hazard to persons 3 lawfully on the property and proof Is demanded, With respect to the allegation thaI Defendants should have corrected the condition or warned about its presence before Plalnliffs accident, the averments are specifically denied since Plalnliff was trllverslng In an area where she had no right to be and the post was obvious to anyone exercising reasonable care, 13. Denied, After reasonable Invesligalion, Defendants are without knowledge or Information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments and proof is demanded, 14, Denied, After reasonable Investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or Information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments and proof Is demanded, 15. Denied, After reasonable invesligatlon. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments and proof is demanded, 16. Denied, After reasonable Investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments and proof is demanded, 17, Denied, After reasonable Investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments and proof is demanded, 18, Denied, After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or Information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments and proof is demanded. WHEREFORE, Defendants Davenport's Family Limited Partnership, and Keystone Apple, Inc" Vdlb/a Applebee's Neighborhood Grill and Bar respectfully request that the Complaint be dismissed and judgment be entered against Plaintiff, NEW MATTER 19, Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted, 20, Defendants were not negligent, careless or reckless, 21, Any acts or omissions of Defendants were not substantial causes or factors of the subject incident and/or did not result in the losses alleged by the Plaintiff, 4 22, The Incident and/or damages described In Plaintiffs Complaint were caused or contributed to by the Plaintiff, 23, The negligent acts or omissions of other Individuals end/or entities constitute Intervening, superseding causes of the damages end/or Injuries elleged to have been sustained by the Plaintiff. 24, Plaintiffs cause of action is barred by the contributory negligence of Plelntiff, 25. Plaintiffs claims are limited or otherwise barred by application of Pennsylvania's Comperatlve Negligence Act, 42 Pa. C,S. ~7102. 26. The injuries and damages allegedly sustained by the Plaintiff were caused by her contributory negligence and carelessness as follows: (a) In falling to walk In an area designated for pedestrians; (b) In attempting to traverse a cement triangle located between the the exiVentrance lanes to Defendants' restaurant, which area was not designated for pedestrian traffic; (c) in falling to watch where she was walking; (d) In falling to maintain a proper lookout; (e) In falling to use due caution or care under the circumstances, including the failure to observe an open and obvious condition; (f) In falling to discover and/or observe the alleged defect and/or the alleged dangerous condition complained of; (g) In falling to take precaution to avoid Injury; and (h) In falling to take an alternate path, 27, Defendants owed no duty to the Plaintiff. 26, Plaintiff was neither a business invitee nor a licensee at the time of the alleged incident. 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that on this dey I served e true and correct copy of the foregoing document by first class mall, postage pre.pald, addressed to tho following: Michael Navltsky, Esquire Angino & Rovner, p, C, 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Dat~C<'()J Cf ,1999 :59939,1 >. a, >- r': c.:: ... ~': lLj~ , C:~ -:!,~ ( ',/ ( ',' r',' '--- ~ :: i "; ( --. : '-' c_ LL ""J I c .. ,'" "3 u .~.., () 23, The alleqations constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required, To the extent that any response is required, said alleqations are denied. Defendants' neqliqence directly or proximately caused Plaintiff's injuries. There was no interveninq or superseding cause, 24. The alleqations constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required, To the extent that any response is required, said allegations are denied. Plaintiff was not negligent. 25. The allegations constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required, To the extent that any response is required, said allegations are denied. Plaintiff was not negligent. 26. The allegations constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required, To the extent that any response is required, said allegations are denied, Plaintiff specifically responds to the allegations as follows: a, Denied, Plaintiff was walking in an area designated for pedestrians or in an area where it was lawful for pedestrians to walk; b. Denied, The sidewalk or cement triangle on Defendants' property is an area designated for pedestrian traffic or one in which is lawful for pedestrians to walk; c. Denied. Plaintiff was watching where she was walking; d. Denied, Plaintiff maintained a proper look out; 2 e, Denied. Plaintiff used due caution and care under the circumstances and observed any open or obvious conditions as was reasonable under the circumstances; f. Denied. Plaintiff discovered and/or observed the defect ~nd dangerous condition of Defendants' property after she tripped and fell, The defect and dangerous condition was not open and obvious to Plaintiff, who was acting reasonably and properly at all material times; g. Denied. Plaintiff took all proper precautions to avoid injury; and h. Denied. Plaintiff was not required to take an alternate path as the area she was traversing was appropriate for pedestrian traffic. 27. The allegations constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that any response is required, said allegations are denied. Defendants owed a duty to the Plaintiff. 28. The allegations constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that any response is required, said allegations are denied. Plaintiff was a business invitee or a licensee at the time of the accident. 29. The allegations constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that any response is required, said allegations are denied. The condition of Defendants' premise was not open and obvious under the circumstances. 3 >- ~ ~ N ~~ M ::> 0;;',; fj:\;! ::c ....J:;.;. ~~: a.. ,:-~e 0 0 ~(I) L f~~ N 1'" -Jl" I- i:i:Z a::i: 1.I.Jt1J '-' ~J!~ , ,_. 0 u.. C"l ::s 0 CT\ U 'J ',J , l.11 "- , U 'Il " ('., c., v' .: ~) I. ~ ~ ... .. .. ~ S .. 0 '" ~ in " ~ to ... " ~ ~ - z " a 0 . .. ll- '" 0 '" .. m " E z c;j m ~ ... on a: ~ ~ ~ 0 '" ~ z . eo; on X 0 I:l '" ~ ~ .....