This case arises out of an incident that occurred on September 6, 2002. Plaintiff Robin Welde alleges that she was on the “sidewalks, walkways, and streets, located adjacent to 1600 Chestnut Street” in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and was “caused to slip/trip and fall,” suffering “serious and permanent injuries.” (Doc. No. 1 at 3-4.) Plaintiffs filed the original Complaint on September 3, 2004 and filed an Amended Complaint adding three additional Defendants, Beneficial Mutual Savings Bank,1 Pennoni Associates, Inc. (“Pennoni”), and Ramos and Associates, Inc. (“Ramos”) on June 15, 2005. (Doc. No. 31.) Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint alleges claims of negligence/gross negligence (Count One), willful and wanton disregard of Plaintiff’s safety (Count Two), product defect/products liability (Count Three), loss of consortium (Count Four), punitive damages (Count Four [sic]), and joint and several liability (Count Five). (Doc. No. 31 at 6-12.)
In the instant Motion filed January 25, 2006, Defendant Beneficial Partners, L.P. (“Beneficial Partners”) seeks leave to join Pennoni and Ramos as third party defendants. (Doc. No. 67.) The City of Philadelphia filed a similar motion for leave to join these same two parties on March 22, 2005 (Doc. No. 16) and, after approval from this Court, filed a Third Party Complaint against Pennoni and Ramos on May 2, 2005. (Doc. No. 29.) The City’s Third Party Complaint alleges that if the sidewalk on which the Plaintiff fell was dangerous or defective, such condition was due to Pennoni’s negligent design of the sidewalk or the negligent construction of the sidewalk by Ramos.
That Complaint also alleges that the City had contracts with Ramos and Pennoni, which provided that Pennoni and Ramos were required to defend and indemnify the City for claims like Plaintiff’s. Pennoni and Ramos both argue that we should deny the instant Motion and the attempt by Beneficial Partners to join them as third party defendants. Pennoni filed an Answer, disputing specific passages in Beneficial Partners’ Motion and Proposed Third Party Complaint. (Doc. No. 68.) Ramos filed a Reply to the Motion arguing that the Court should deny the Motion as untimely.
As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court explained: The general rule is that the liability, if any, of a municipality for an injury due to a defective or dangerous sidewalk is only a secondary one; the primary obligation rests with the abutting property owners. . . . “Recovery against the city is permitted on a theory that the city has neglected to perform its duty to require the property owner or tenant to maintain the sidewalk in a condition reasonably safe for travel.” Consequently, where the plaintiff is awarded a verdict against the city, the city is entitled to a verdict over against the additional defendant upon whom the ultimate burden rests.
ORDER AND NOW, this 1st day of September, 2006, upon consideration of Beneficial Partners, L.P.’s Motion For Leave To Add Additional Defendants Through Third Party Complaint (Doc. No. 67),
it is ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. BY THE COURT: /s/ R. Barclay Surrick United States District Court Judge
