Quantcast

Protective order approved for Toro and Home Depot's proprietary records in injury case surrounding leafblower

PENNSYLVANIA RECORD

Sunday, December 22, 2024

Protective order approved for Toro and Home Depot's proprietary records in injury case surrounding leafblower

Federal Court
Home depot

Home Depot

PHILADELPHIA – A federal judge has approved a protective order in the case of a Delaware County man who sued both Home Depot and the Toro lawn equipment company after he allegedly suffered serious injuries to his left hand while using a leaf blower.

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 stated.

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.

UPDATE

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Chad F. Kenney authorized a protective order filed to shield proprietary information regarding the defendants from those not immediately associated with the litigation on July 22.

“Documents or information containing confidential or proprietary business information and/or trade secrets that bear significantly on the claims or defenses of defendants, The Toro Company, The Home Depot, and Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. are likely to be disclosed or produced during the course of discovery in this litigation,” Kenney said.

“Defendants assert that public dissemination and disclosure of confidential information could severely injure or damage Toro or the Home Depot and would place them at a competitive disadvantage. Controlling access to and dissemination of confidential information will protect the respective interests of the parties and facilitate the progress of disclosure and discovery in this case.”

Kenney added that entry of such an order controlling access to and dissemination of confidential information will protect the respective interests of the parties and facilitate the progress of disclosure and discovery in this case.

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

From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com

More News