SCRANTON – A Mississippi widower and a Mount Union company are battling over the second complaint filed concerning an allegedly defective natural gas heater which may have been responsible for the death of his wife.
William Scott Etheridge of Holly Springs, Miss., initially filed a complaint on Feb. 14 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against World Marketing of America (doing business as “Kozy-World”) of Mount Union.
The complaint alleged his wife, Doris Jean Etheridge, died after flames from a Kozy-World Wall Heater installed in their home “protruded outside of the grated barrier” on March 18, 2019, catching her shirt on fire and resulting in severe burns that led to her hospitalization and death.
She passed away two weeks later, on April 1, 2019.
Etheridge alleged the heater had an inherent design defect and that it was used in his home without substantial change to the condition under which Kozy-World marketed and sold the product.
He added the company “failed to conform to federal requirements for labels, warnings and instructions” and “knew or should have known that the product created significant risks of serious bodily harm and death to consumers.”
On April 13, World Marketing of America filed a motion to dismiss all punitive damages from the complaint.
“Plaintiff has failed to allege any grounds justifying punitive damages resulting from the Mississippi Incident. Punitive damages are not available for ordinary negligence or gross negligence, and may not be awarded where plaintiff fails to allege facts that demonstrate the requisite state of mind on behalf of the defendant in the complaint. Conclusory statements without factual allegations are insufficient to meet the standard,” the dismissal motion read, in part.
“Plaintiff’s complaint alleges claims for strict products liability, with respect to manufacturing, design, and allegedly insufficient warnings as well as negligence, and asserts no facts supporting the necessary elements of willful, wanton, and reckless conduct to meet the standard for imposition of punitive damages against World Marketing. Without those allegations, plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages cannot survive.”
U.S. District Court Judge Jennifer P. Wilson entered an order on April 24 which permitted Etheridge to remove his claim for punitive damages without prejudice and file an amended complaint to that effect, mooting prior motions to dismiss and for extension of time to respond to the action from the defendant. In addition, the defendant would then have 30 days to respond to the amended complaint.
Etheridge then filed his amended complaint minus the punitive damages count on May 4, and World Marketing of America filed its answer on June 2, which asserted a number of affirmative defenses.
“Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The subject incident resulted from one or more factors, over which this defendant had no control or right of control and which could not have been reasonably predicted, foreseen or prevented. Plaintiff’s alleged damages were the direct and proximate result of an intervening and/or superseding cause, thus relieving defendant of any and all liability. Plaintiff’s alleged damages were caused by the direct and proximate negligence or fault of parties or persons other than defendant,” the company partially said in its response.
“Plaintiff’s claims are barred by reason of spoliation of evidence, reason of the statute of repose, reason of the statute of limitations, alteration of the product, misuse of the product, for failure to join all necessary and proper parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 and for failure to state with particularity matters required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9.”
The company added the plaintiff’s alleged damages were “caused by an inherent characteristic of the product which is a generic aspect of the product that cannot be eliminated without substantially compromising the product’s usefulness or desirability.”
The plaintiff is represented by Jaime Jackson of Atlee Hall in Lancaster and Patrick M. Ardis of Wolff Ardis, in Memphis, Tenn.
The defendant is represented by Sean D. Magenis of McCoy Leavitt Laskey in Falmouth, Maine and Bradley D. Remick of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 1:20-cv-00272
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com