Date: 10-11-2024

Case Style:

Wilhelmina White v. Pathmark Stores, et al.

Case Number: 2:15-CV-2618

Judge: Paul S. Diamond

Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best Philadelphia Personal Injury Lawyer Directory

Defendant's Attorney: Amy G. Wirth

Description:

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania personal injury premises liability lawyer represented the Plaintiff.

Pathmark Stores, Inc. was founded in 1968 and operates 141 supermarkets in New York,
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware. As a pioneer in the supermarket industry, Pathmark
operates 24-hour stores and “Super Centers” and was one of the first supermarket chains to
install scanning checkout registers.

Pennsylvania premises liability law holds property owners and occupiers responsible for injuries that occur on their property due to unsafe conditions. The law applies to both public and private property, including homes, businesses, and vacant lots.
Here are some key points about Pennsylvania premises liability law:

Duty of care

Property owners are responsible for keeping their property safe and free of hazards. The level of care required depends on the status of the visitor, such as an invitee, licensee, or trespasser.

Liability

Property owners can be held liable for medical bills, lost wages, and other damages if they fail to meet their duty of care.

Proof

To win a premises liability case, the victim must prove that the property owner knew or should have known about the unsafe condition and failed to fix it.

Statute of limitations

The statute of limitations for premises liability claims in Pennsylvania is two years from the date of the injury.
Recreational use

The Recreational Use of Land and Water Act (RULWA) limits landowners' liability if they open their land to the public for recreation.

Some common causes of premises liability claims include:

Poor lighting
Unsafe walkways and stairways
Wet or slippery floors
Snowy or icy conditions
Falling objects
Lack of maintenance

Outcome: 2 ORDER THAT THIS CASE IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE. THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL CLOSE THIS CASE.SIGNED BY DISTRICT JUDGE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 10/11/24. 10/11/24 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(amas) (Entered: 10/11/2024)

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: