PITTSBURGH – An auto body repair shop customer who says the shop’s mechanic ignited fireworks near his head argues that the mechanic in question was acting in the scope of his employment when the incident transpired.
An auto body repair shop says it’s not responsible for the actions of one of its mechanics, who allegedly ignited fireworks near the head of a customer, who believed he was being shot at.
Antione Hunter of Allegheny County first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on July 14 versus Monro, Inc. (doing business as “Monro Auto Service and Tire Centers”) of Rochester, N.Y.
“On Aug. 10, 2019, plaintiff was lawfully on the referenced premises as a business invitee of the Monro Auto Service and Tire Centers, specifically the one located at 60 Allegheny River Boulevard, Verona, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, for the purposes of having work done on his two motor vehicle. Matthew Waterson was an employee of the defendant and present on the premises at that time as an employee. At that time, plaintiff was in the repair/lift area and discussing his vehicle with the mechanic assigned to his car,” the suit stated.
“While talking to the mechanic, who was working on one of plaintiff’s cars in the garage lift area, another mechanic/employee of the defendant, namely Waterson, suddenly and without warning, ignited and caused to go off, certain explosives and/or firecrackers in the vicinity of plaintiff’s head. At that time, plaintiff was under the impression that he was being shot at when hearing a loud noise which sounded like gunfire.”
At the time of the subject incident, Waterson did in fact have a gun in his possession, which was allegedly known to other employees and personnel of the defendant. The plaintiff alleged Waterson took ownership of the gun from another employee and spoke with other employees about shooting someone at the time of the incident.
“Plaintiff, as a result of having firecrackers thrown at him, attempted to jump out of the way and/or due to being startled by the sudden and unexpected noises and the attack directed towards his person, jumped out of the way and became injured as a result of the sudden, unexpected and reflexive movement to said noises. The situation was further exacerbated by other agents/employees of Monro laughing as a result of this incident,” the suit claimed.
Subsequently, the plaintiff suffered a torn medial meniscus in his left knee and a back injury, in addition to post-traumatic stress disorder stemming from the incident, the suit claims.
Monro, Inc. filed an answer to the complaint on Oct. 8, denying the plaintiff’s allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
“Matthew Waterson was not acting in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the incidents alleged, and therefore Monro cannot be held vicariously liable for his actions or inactions. To the extent revealed by discovery, plaintiff’s alleged injuries and damages were caused by the actions or inactions of a third party or parties, for whose conduct Monro was neither liable nor responsible,” the defendant’s answer read, in part.
“Although not necessary to do so, Monro pleads the affirmative defenses of comparative negligence, contributory negligence and assumption of the risk as a full and complete bar to plaintiff’s claims. Monro believes and therefore avers that plaintiff’s negligence was the sole and proximate cause of plaintiff’s alleged injuries and damages, and therefore plaintiff’s claims are barred or diminished due to plaintiff’s own negligence.”
UPDATE
Counsel for Hunter replied to Monro’s new matter on Oct. 22, dismissing it in its entirety as conclusions of law to which no further response is required and countering the defendant’s claims as presented.
“Matthew Waterson was acting in the course and scope of his employment and his behavior and actions were known, endorsed and condoned by the defendant, agents, officers and employees. Defendant remains liable for the actions of its employee under multiple additional theories including, but not limited to, negligent hiring, training and supervision, as well as those further set forth in plaintiff’s complaint,” according to the plaintiff’s reply.
For a count of negligence, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of the jurisdictional limits of compulsory arbitration, plus court costs, interest and such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and equitable.
The plaintiff is represented by Stephen H. Lebovitz of Lebovitz & Lebovitz, in Pittsburgh.
The defendant is represented by Elizabeth F. Collura of William J. Ferren & Associates, in Hartford, Connecticut.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-20-007602
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com