This was an action for personal injuries arising out of the Defendants’ collective design, construction, and maintenance of a warehouse addition to the premises of of a printing company in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.

Part of this warehouse addition resulted in the construction of a below grade loading dock ramp that measures 60 feet in length. The Defendants agreed in writing between themselves on January 29, 1998 and again on April 1, 1998 to build this ramp to a length of 60 feet.

However, the Defendants had previously engaged the services of a licensed professional architect who drew plans on April 16, 1998 showing the ramp at only 34 feet in length.

The Defendants submitted the plans drawn by their chosen architect to the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry, on two occasions, and received permission from L&I to construct a 34 foot ramp. The Defendants also submitted these plans to the West Earl Township Building Officer, who granted permission to construct a 34 foot ramp.

As designed by the Architect, the ramp would not have affected the door from which the Plaintiff fell on April 8, 1999. However, as built, the door from which the Plaintiff fell was right in the middle of the ramp creating a dangerous drop-off. As a result of this condition, the Plaintiff sustained a severely broken foot and heel bone.

The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants knowingly and deliberately mislead their architect, the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry, and West Earl Township intending the ramp to be 60 feet, and wantonly, willfully and/or recklessly withheld this information from their architect, the Pennsylvania Department of Labor & Industry, and West Earl Township.

It was agreed by the expert for the Defendant Construction Company, that as built, this warehouse ramp and door juxtaposition created a "dangerous condition."

It was also agreed by the expert for the Defendant Printing Company that, as built, this warehouse ramp and door juxtaposition created an unsafe condition.

Each of the Defendants contended that this was not their fault and blamed each other for the creation and maintenance of this condition.

The case settled just before trial for $1,000,000.00.