Chambers v. Bob's Disc. Furniture
| Decision Date | 06 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL 1:21-CV-01188 |
| Parties | RONICA CHAMBERS, Plaintiff, v. BOB'S DISCOUNT FURNITURE, et. al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
This is a diversity suit brought under Pennsylvania law. Plaintiff Ronica Chambers (“Chambers”), alleges that Defendants Bob's Discount Furniture and Bob's Discount Furniture LLC (collectively “Bob's”) are negligent and vicariously liable for her injuries resulting from a slip and fall incident. (Doc. 1-3.) The case is presently before the court on a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted filed by Bob's. (Doc. 4.) For the reasons that follow, the motion is granted.
According to the allegations in the complaint, on or about February 28 2019, Chambers purchased a broken and defective chair from Bob's. (Doc. 1-3, ¶¶ 13-14.) At some point after purchasing the chair, Chambers fell to the ground after coming into contact with the chair, which allegedly resulted in injuries, including: “left posterior heal spur, left Achilles tendinosis, foot injury requiring surgical repair resulting in skin discoloration and permanent scarring musculoskeletal injuries.” (Id. ¶¶ 16, 20.)
In addition to Bob's, Chambers names as defendants Any Furniture Repairs Inc. (“Any Furniture”) and John Doe. (Id.) The complaint alleges that Any Furniture was hired and/or contracted to perform necessary repairs to furniture that was sold by Bob's and was under warranty. (Id. ¶ 10.) In addition, John Doe, whose identity is unknown, is a contractor and/or sub-contractor of Any Furniture Repairs that potentially had responsibility for the maintenance, repair, and control of any and all furniture sold by Bob's. (Id. ¶¶ 6-8.) As a result of this accident and her injuries, Chambers alleges that she may suffer “a severe loss of earnings and impairment of earning power and capacity” as well as incurring financial expenses. (Id. ¶¶ 23-24.)
Chambers initiated this action via complaint on February 24, 2021, in the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County. (Doc. 1.) The case was removed to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on April 6, 2021 (Doc. 1), and then transferred to this court on July 7, 2021. In Count I of the complaint, Chambers alleges that Bob's was vicariously liable and negligent in causing Chambers's slip and fall accident. (Doc. 1-3, ¶¶ 18-25.)[1] Bob's moved to dismiss Chambers's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted on April 19, 2021. (Doc. 4.) Briefing on the motion is complete, and the motion is ripe for the court's disposition. (Docs. 4, 7, 8.)
This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 as the parties have complete diversity and the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000. Further, venue is appropriate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because the events detailed in the complaint occurred within the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
In order “[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible on its face “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “Conclusory allegations of liability are insufficient” to survive a motion to dismiss. Garrett v. Wexford Health, 938 F.3d 69, 92 (3d Cir. 2019) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79). To determine whether a complaint survives a motion to dismiss, a court identifies “the elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim for relief, ” disregards the allegations “that are no more than conclusions and thus not entitled to the assumption of truth, ” and determines whether the remaining factual allegations “plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Bistrian v. Levi, 696 F.3d 352, 365 (3d Cir. 2012).
Chambers attempts to assert a claim for vicarious liability against Bob's by alleging, “[a]t all times material hereto, defendant, [Any Furniture] was hired and/or contracted to perform necessary repairs for furniture sold by defendants BDF and/or BDF LLC which was under warranty, ” and, “[u]pon information and belief, Defendant, John Doe, is that of a contractor and/or sub-contractor.” (Doc. 1-3, ¶¶ 6, 10.) Bob's argues that Chambers does not plead facts that would make Bob's vicariously liable for the alleged negligence of Any Furniture and also fails to plead that Bob's retained control over the work of Any Furniture. (Doc. 4, p. 4.) Bob's further contends that Chambers cannot sustain a cause of action for vicarious liability because the Any Repair technician was an independent contractor, and a claim of vicarious liability against an independent contractor is not supported by Pennsylvania law. (Id. at 5.) In contrast, Chambers argues that it would be improper and premature to dismiss Bob's at this point in time because discovery has not taken place. (Doc. 7, pp. 3-4.)
The court agrees with Bob's. Generally, in Pennsylvania, employers are not liable for the acts or omissions of an independent contractor or his employees. Lutz v. Cybularz, 607 A.2d 1089, 1091 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992) (citing Ortiz v. Ra-el Development Corp., 528 A.2d 1355, 1357 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1987)).[2] There are three narrow exceptions to this general rule: (1) “the owner has retained control of the work designated to the contractor”; (2) the work creates a peculiar unreasonable risk of harm [redacted] danger to others unless precautions are taken”; or (3) “the owner negligently selected a contractor.” Hart Trucking Repair v. Robb H, Inc., No. 1051 EDA 2014, 2015 WL 7282631, at *15 (). According to the allegations in the complaint, Any Furniture is an independent contractor, and John Doe is an employee of Any Furniture. (See Doc. 1-3, ¶¶ 6, 10.) Thus, Bob's cannot be vicariously liable for the negligence of Any Furniture or John Doe according to Pennsylvania law unless one of the exceptions to the general rule applies. Chambers did not allege that any of the three exceptions apply, and no facts in the complaint support the inference that an exception applies.
Accordingly, Chambers's claim for vicarious liability against Bob's will be dismissed.
Bob's argues that Chambers's allegations do not support a negligence cause of action against Bob's because Bob's owed her no duty to protect her from tripping over furniture in her own home. (Doc. 4, p. 6.) Bob's also argues that a reasonable landowner could not foresee a purchaser tripping over a loveseat after a year of use. (Id. at 7.) Contrary to Bob's contentions Chambers argues that she sufficiently...
To continue reading
Request your trial