U., SEPTA deny fault in blind student's fall

The University has denied any responsibility in connection with a September accident that sent blind Law student Gerald Jeandron plunging 25 feet into an uncovered subway ventilation shaft on 36th Street. The University joins SEPTA -- both co-defendents in the student's pending lawsuit -- in denying responsibility for Jeandron's accident. The University instead claims that, if anyone is to blame, it is SEPTA, and SEPTA maintains that only the University's actions should be under question. In a suit filed in Common Pleas Court in March, Jeandron accused both the University and SEPTA of negligence for failing to replace a missing metal sidewalk grate until after the accident sent him tumbling to the ground more than 25 feet below. Jeandron claimed in the suit that SEPTA and the University each owed him more than $20,000 a piece for his pain and suffering, medical expenses, probable loss of future earnings and added education costs if his graduation is delayed. The suit alleges that the only action taken before his fall -- the placement of a "partial barricade" around the shaft opening -- actually increased Jeandron's chances of falling by guiding him and his walking cane directly to the opening. In its answer to the suit, the University denied any blame for the fall, arguing that University personnel responding to a report of the missing grate "properly protected the public" by barricading the area and wrapping yelllow plastic caution tape "several times" around the barricades. In fact, the University maintains that SEPTA assumed sole responsibility for the open shaft once University personnel informed SEPTA officials of the missing grate about 30 hours prior to the accident. The University claims that it "was under the belief that SEPTA had properly taken control and responsibility so as to remedy the condition or warn others of its existence." One key point is which defendant -- the University or SEPTA -- is legally required to maintain the safety of sidewalk grates such as the one that was missing at the time Jeandron fell. Jeandron's suit argues that the University is liable because the University "retained control over the sidewalk and land" where the accident occurred, and "knew of conditions on its land presenting an unreasonable risk of harm" to all passersby, especially blind people like Jeandron. The University denies those accusations, but agrees with Jeandron's suit that SEPTA may be liable because of the transportation authority's responsibility "for the maintenance and operation of the subway system." Citing an agreement between the City of Philadelphia and SEPTA's predecessor, the Philadelphia Transportation Company, the University argues that if Jeandron's allegations are proven at the time of trial, only SEPTA should be held liable. Lawyers for SEPTA have also responded to Jeandron's suit, denying his claims of SEPTA's liability. As is common in such cases involving two defendants, SEPTA also tried to assess blame on the other defendant, in this case the University. Jeandron's accident occurred on the morning of September 16, after he left his Graduate Towers A apartment and began heading south on 36th Street towards Sansom Street. After bumping into a "partial barricade" bordering the open shaft, he said he changed course and stepped right into the shaft. As a result of the fall, Jeandron said he suffered numerous injuries, including lacerations to his head and face, fractures of his ankle and sacrum, and fractures of his left wrist and elbow that damaged the "fine motor function" in his left hand. According to the suit, Jeandron immediately realized he had fallen into some part of the SEPTA subway complex. Lying at the bottom of the shaft, he could hear approaching trolleys, but could not tell "whether or not he was on the track area."