Freeport, historical society sued over fall on sidewalk
A McCandless couple has sued Freeport Borough and the Freeport Area Historical Society, claiming a deteriorated sidewalk on Fifth Street led to a fall that caused serious injuries.
In a lawsuit filed on Monday in the Armstrong County Court, Patricia Moore, 61, claims that in September 2010 she tripped and fell on an “uneven and raised” portion of the concrete sidewalk in front of 230 Fifth St.
Moore suffered a fractured wrist and other injuries as well as emotional distress, the Moores claim in the lawsuit. The couple is seeking damages for loss of income and pain and suffering.
The Moores say the borough and historical society had a responsibility to maintain the sidewalk.
The building and property is owned by the now defunct historical society, but the nonprofit never occupied the dilapidated building, which the borough paid to have demolished over the summer.
Borough Solicitor Gerald DeAngelis said the borough never had a connection to the property and, according to borough ordinance, the property owner is responsible for maintaining the sidewalk in front of their property.
When the borough learned of the lawsuit via a summons, DeAngelis said he offered to give the Moores the property at 230 Fifth St.
“That's the only asset the society would have owned,” he said. “And I'm in the process of liening it for the cost of the demolition.”
Pittsburgh attorney John Bryan, who is representing the Moores, declined to comment beyond what appears in the complaint.
The matter is being handled by the borough's insurance carrier, DeAngelis said.
Jodi Weigand is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 724-226-4702 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.