ALLENTOWN – A coil coating manufacturer has hit back at allegations its negligence led to a Coopersburg man’s injuries on the job, countering that he himself caused his own injuries through his own comparative negligence.
A Lehigh County couple have launched litigation against a manufacturer of equipment for coil coating used in metals processing, arguing its negligence led to the husband-plaintiff’s serious injuries at work.
Mark Birch and Crystal Birch of Coopersburg filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on June 2 versus GFG Peabody, Inc., of Sussex, Wis.
Mark Birch was employed by Vorteq Coil Finishers in Allentown and the suit says prior to July 24, 2019, Vorteq purchased an S-Wrap Finisher Coater believed to be Model No: S3(RT)/S3(AR) 3060 HD from GFG Peabody.
That day, Birch was at work and using the device, when he observed the presence of a chemical on the top of a metal structural member that was deposited there during the intended use of the product, the suit says.
“Plaintiff attempted to clean the aforesaid chemical from the metal structural member while the product was in forward code with a small a rag, and his left upper extremity entered the space between the metal structural member and the applicator roll and was pulled through the space and down into the nip point by the rotation of the applicator roll, which pulled his left upper extremity into the nip point hazard, causing plaintiff(s) to suffer the injuries and damages,” the suit states.
“Plaintiff was caused to suffer injuries, all of which are or may be permanent in nature, to his bones, joints, muscles, tendons, blood vessels and soft tissues throughout his entire body, both internally and externally, including, but not limited to severe crush and amputation injuries to his left upper extremity and shoulder.”
The plaintiffs believe the defendant defectively designed and sold the finisher coater product, without warning of the possible dangers associated with its use.
UPDATE
GFG Peabody answered the complaint on July 15, denying all liability for the claims brought by the Birches, arguing the aggrieved plaintiff caused his own injuries and bringing no less than 15 affirmative defenses against the plaintiffs.
“The complaint fails to set forth a cause of action and/or a claim for relief against the answering defendant. The product in question was improperly maintained and this was the cause of the accident described in the plaintiffs’ complaint. The product in question was misused and/or abused. The superseding negligence of parties and/or entities over which answering defendant had no control nor right to control relieves answering defendant of any liability,” the defendant’s answer read, in part.
“The liability of answering defendant, if any, is mitigated by the provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Statute. The plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk. Any and all claims made against answering defendant are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Any and all claims made against the answering defendant are barred by the Pennsylvania Statute of Repose.”
Among other defenses, the defendant argued that the injured plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages, that there was spoliation of evidence and that the plaintiff failed to give timely notice for any alleged breach of warranty and therefore, any such claim is barred.
For counts of negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, the plaintiffs are each individually seeking damages in excess of $150,000, plus interest, delay damages and costs of suit.
The plaintiffs are represented by Mark K. Altemose of Cohen & Feeley, in Bethlehem.
The defendant is represented by Bradley D. Remick of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 5:20-cv-02592
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com