Michael Dankanich Obtains Dismissal by Way of Summary Judgment in Fall Down Case

Michael D. Dankanich, Esquire, a shareholder with Zarwin, Baum, secured the dismissal of a personal injury claim against a client company charged with responsibility of providing cleaning services to a shopping center.

Plaintiff alleged that she was caused to trip and fall in a parking lot of a shopping center as a result of her feet becoming intertwined in debris. Plaintiff suffered a wrist fracture and claims permanent disability.

Mr. Dankanich’s client, a cleaning contractor retained by the shopping center owner, was joined as a third party defendant by the shopping center on a theory that cleaning contractor had a responsibility to maintain the parking lot at issue which would have included the removal of any and all debris. Mr. Dankanich filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis that his client’s responsibilities, with regard to cleaning the area at issue, was specific in terms of cleaning services being provided only three times a week and only during certain hours and that there was no evidence that the debris at issue had been present during any of those specific time periods and, therefore, no basis of negligence on the part of the cleaning contractor.

The shopping center argued that in absence of a written contract, they claimed that the cleaning contractor’s responsibilities were broader than those claimed by the cleaning contractor and there was an issue as to whether the cleaning contractor’s responsibilities were day to day as compared to specific dates and times. Mr. Dankanich was then able to successfully argue to the Court that based on a 20-year prior history of his client performing these specific duties at specific times, and there being no complaints from the shopping center owner that the cleaning services were inadequate, the shopping center owner acquiesced to this course of conduct and could not now complain that the cleaning contractor services may be inadequate.

Mr. Dankanich’s client was then dismissed from the action. The Court found that the client’s 20 year course of conduct confirmed the contractual terms in the absence of a written contract.