PHILADELPHIA – Home Depot explicitly denies the allegations of a Delaware County man who sued both it and the Toro lawn equipment company after he allegedly suffered serious injuries to his left hand while using a leaf blower, suggesting the complaint should be dismissed.
Harry Sheldrake of Glenolden first filed suit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on April 27 versus The Toro Company of Bloomington, Minn., plus The Home Depot and Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., both of Atlanta.
The defendants removed the litigation to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on May 29
“On or about June 20, 2018, plaintiff, Harry Sheldrake was utilizing the Toro Ultra Blower/Vacuum Model No. 51619 when he was caused to suffer severe personal injuries to his left hand as a result of the dangerous, defective condition of the leaf blower (i.e. improper guarding of the impeller),” the lawsuit states.
An impeller is a rotor used to increase the pressure and flow of a fluid inside a mechanical device. Per the suit, the injuries Sheldrake suffered are left finger injuries requiring multiple surgeries.
“As a direct result of the aforesaid injury, plaintiff suffered severe shock to his nervous system, great physical pain, and mental anguish, all of which may continue for an indefinite period of time into the future. Plaintiff has been compelled to expend various sums of money for medication and medical attention in attempting to remedy the aforementioned injuries,” per the suit.
The suit alleges the leaf blower was defectively designed by Toro, negligently sold by The Home Depot and that both defendants failed to adequately warn of the dangers of using the product, resulting in Sheldrake’s injuries.
On June 29, Home Depot filed an answer to the litigation. It denied the plaintiff’s allegations in their entireties and asserted 29 separate affirmative defenses. Some of these defenses included:
• Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cause of action, in whole or in part, upon which relief can be granted;
• Plaintiff’s claims may be barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statute of limitations and/or statute of repose, and, therefore, the cause(s) of action should be dismissed;
• Plaintiff’s damages, as alleged in the complaint, were caused, in whole or in part, by the superseding intervention of causes outside of the control of defendants; and
• There may have been spoliation of material evidence in this matter by plaintiff and defendants expressly reserve their right to rely upon all sanctions provided for under the doctrine of spoliation.
For counts of negligence, product liability and breach of warranty, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of $50,000 and in an amount not within the compulsory arbitration limit of this court.
The plaintiff is represented by Craig A. Falcone of Sacchetta & Falcone, in Media.
The defendants are represented by George R. Murphy, Kenneth T. Newman and Laura J. Herzog of Thomas Thomas & Hafer, in Pittsburgh and Allentown.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-02537
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 200401321
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com