SCRANTON – A welder who suffered second-degree burns in a “catastrophic” gas explosion at a job site and sued the corporate owner of the property where his accident took place, is seeking to consolidate his case with a separate-but-related action.
Torin Shover of Petersburgh, Ind. first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on Aug. 18 versus Reading Anthracite Company, of Pottsville.
The suit said Shover was acting in the course and scope of his employment with T&E Welding, Inc., when he was working at the defendant’s Wadesville P-33 mine in Pottsville, helping to remove a pump at the Wadesville Shaft Pump House.
“Shover was working on a landing above the floor surface of the Wadesville Shaft Pump House while several of his co-employees were using acetylene torches to burn and remove couplings from the pump drive shaft,” the suit said.
“Some hot slag from the aforesaid burning process fell down the pump shaft causing an ignition of combustible gases that had accumulated in the shaft. As a result of this ignition, a fireball came up through the shaft and engulfed Shover causing him to suffer serious, painful and catastrophic injuries.”
As a result of the aforementioned incident, Shover suffered severe and permanent injuries including, but not limited to, second-degree burns to his face, ears, neck, hands, arms and legs, with resulting scarring and other injuries, all of which may be permanent in nature.
“Defendant, having undertaken the inspection and supervision of the project, owed a duty to those persons engaged in the performance of the work, including plaintiff, a business invitee, to provide a reasonably safe working environment, free from exposure to unreasonable hazards while performing services related to the project,” the suit stated.
UPDATE
Shover filed a motion on Oct. 13 to consolidate his case with that of Reading Anthracite Company, Inc. v. T&E Welding, Inc. due to commonalities of fact and questions of law.
“As these cases arise from the exact same incident, consolidating them will promote efficiency and judicial economy without sacrificing fairness by placing these cases before one judge and allowing the parties to present and resolve legal disputes in one forum. Likewise, convenience will be promoted by allowing the parties to engage in discovery at the same time,” counsel for Shover wrote.
“Specifically, the parties will be able to coordinate depositions as it is anticipated that the fact witnesses in both cases, including employees of both Reading Anthracite and T&E, will be largely the same. Consolidation of these matters would prevent these witnesses from incurring the and expense of being deposed multiple times, and from getting a proverbial ‘bite at the apple’ in the case that was filed first before testifying again in the case that is behind procedurally.”
Furthermore, counsel for Shover presented that although the [other] case is slightly ahead in the discovery process, no depositions in that matter have been scheduled or taken – and allowing these cases to proceed separately will “only serve to generate needless duplication of effort and expense, whereas consolidation of the actions would avoid duplicative discovery and economic waste.”
For a count of negligence, the plaintiff is seeking damages in his favor, plus interest, costs and any and all other relief this Court deems appropriate and just, plus a trial by jury.
The plaintiff is represented by Jordan S. Friter of the Law Office of Robert A. Stutman, in Fort Washington.
The defendant is represented by Anthony J. Canale of Bunker & Ray, in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 3:20-cv-01465
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com