OCEAN CITY — Citing government immunity and a lack of sufficient evidence, the State of Maryland this week filed a motion to dismiss a civil suit brought in August against the state and the town of Ocean City seeking $750,000 by an elderly Philadelphia woman following her fall from a wheelchair in 2012 allegedly due to a defective warning mat on a resort street corner.

According to the complaint, on June 16, 2012, the plaintiff, Oda Wendt, 89, of Philadelphia, arrived in Ocean City for her first-ever vacation in the resort. Around 7:50 p.m., Wendt and her family left their condominium to visit the Boardwalk and Wendt was being pushed in a wheelchair by her daughter, Astrid Seiger.

After visiting the Boardwalk, Wendt and her family were going back to their condo and attempted to cross Philadelphia Ave. at Worcester Street from east to west. According to the complaint, the daughter was pushing Wendt in the wheelchair when it struck one of the hard rubber warning mats on the handicap-accessible street corners.

On Aug. 20, Wendt, through her attorney, filed suit in U.S. District Court against the town of Ocean City seeking a combined $750,000 in damages on three counts including negligence, strict liability and a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). However, there is some question of liability.

From the beginning, the Town of Ocean City has asserted any alleged negligence falls on the state. While the town owns and maintains the sidewalks in the resort, the State Highway Administration (SHA) installed the rubber warning mats after the town completed a comprehensive upgrade of the sidewalks to bring them into compliance with the ADA codes. For that reason, Ocean City has already filed its motion to dismiss the case against the town, shifting the onus on the state.

This week, however, the state filed its own motion to dismiss the case penned by lame duck Attorney General Doug Gansler. The motion to dismiss cites the doctrine of sovereign immunity, which insulates governmental bodies from civil suits, as reason to dismiss the negligence counts spelled out in the complaint. As to the alleged ADA violations, the state’s motion to dismiss asserts the complaint does not describe a sidewalk condition unsafe for the disabled alone.

“The plaintiff does not allege that the state failed to provide an ADA-compliant sidewalk and ramp,” the motion to dismiss reads. “Instead, the plaintiff alleges that the ADA-compliant sidewalk and ramp provided was negligently constructed, maintained or repaired. Furthermore, under the facts alleged in her complaint, the condition of the sidewalk would have been an ‘unsafe condition’ to disabled and non-disabled alike.”

The state’s motion to dismiss alleges the defective rubber mat on the resort street corner falls short of a legitimate ADA claim.

“In the instant case, the plaintiff’s complaint alleges her wheelchair struck a piece of hard rubber warning mat partially attached to the ramp and that the ramp warning pad had worn rubber torn off around the center and right of the ramp,” the motion reads. “However, the complaint does not set forth sufficient facts to raise an inference that the conditions described uniquely denied her the benefits of the services, programs or activities because of her disability.”

For those reasons, the state, like the Town of Ocean City, believes the suit is unfounded and should be dismissed.

“Nothwithstanding the plaintiff’s alleged injuries, the unsafe condition that the complaint alleges existed is analogous to an icy sidewalk capable of impacting any individual regardless of disability,” the motion to dismiss reads.  “Despite the naked assertion that the plaintiff was discriminated against by reason of her disability, because the complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to support this allegation, the complaint must be dismissed.”