PITTSBURGH – A woman who suffered three chipped and broken teeth allegedly because of ceramic shards being in her salad counters that the arguments of the restaurant disclaiming liability for her injuries are insufficiently-supported.
Molly E. John of Ford City first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Sept. 3 versus Eat ‘N Park Hospitality Group, Inc., of Homestead.
John said she, her daughter and two granddaughters went out to lunch at Eat ‘N Park’s restaurant location on Sept. 18, 2018. After being seated, the plaintiff informed the server Renee that she would only be having the salad bar for lunch.
The plaintiff and her family proceeded to the salad bar, each selected the items that they wanted (as it is a self-service salad bar) and returned to their table, where they began to eat their lunches without incident.
“On the next bite, plaintiff bit down on something hard and sharp which she immediately assumed was hard plastic or glass. Plaintiff was alarmed and felt severe pain in her lower teeth, front teeth and gum area under her tongue. Plaintiff asked her daughter if there was any noticeable injury to her mouth; her daughter informed her that her front three teeth were chipped and broken,” the suit said.
“Plaintiff immediately informed the server that she was injured. The server returned to plaintiff’s table with the shift manager on duty, Nancy. Nancy apologized to the plaintiff and informed her that earlier that day, a young boy had broken one of the large dishes on the salad bar and it shattered. Moreover, Nancy stated that even though the staff claimed to have removed the pieces of the broken dish, fragments of the shattered dish must have fallen into the salad bin.”
Notwithstanding their attempts to clean and dispose of the broken glass, plaintiff was able to get several pictures with her iPhone. Various staff members also took the salad dish containing plaintiff’s salad and parsed through the items on the plate to “see what she put in her salad” and then continued to the salad bar to look in the bins.
The staff members apologized and paid for the plaintiff’s meal, and followed up by sending John a letter again apologizing for the injuries and included a $20 gift card, which the plaintiff did not use.
John’s teeth were chipped and broken and she suffered lacerations in her mouth. While plaintiff was discussing the incident with the shift manager, several staff began to clean up the glass while plaintiff was attempting to take pictures of it. Notwithstanding their attempts to clean and dispose of the broken glass, plaintiff was able to get several pictures with her iPhone.
The plaintiff made an emergency appointment to see her dentist, who confirmed that three of her teeth were badly chipped and broken. However, Hooks also confirmed that an expensive and complex corrective procedure would need to be performed in order to return the plaintiff’s teeth to a more aesthetically-pleasing condition.
“Since Dr. Hooks could not perform the procedure, plaintiff went to Armstrong Memorial Hospital because she feared she might have swallowed the shards of glass. Because of the injuries suffered in this incident, plaintiff’s teeth are still not completely repaired. Plaintiff has not yet had the dental procedure to fully repair her teeth, because it is cost-prohibitive and it will be a very consuming type of dental surgery,” per the suit.
Counsel for the restaurant filed an answer with new matter on Sept. 25, denying the vast majority of its claims and asserting new matter in response to those same claims.
“To the extent that it is established that plaintiff’s claimed injuries and/or damages, none being admitted, were caused or contributed to by persons, entities, or circumstances beyond the control of this defendant, then this defendant pleads defenses of superseding cause and/or intervening cause as complete or partial defenses in this case,” the answer read, in part.
“Plaintiff’s claims for injuries and/or damages are barred in whole or in part by pre-existing and/or subsequent conditions unrelated to the incident at issue in this case.”
The restaurant adds failure to mitigate damage is also a defense it is putting forth.
“To the extent that it is established by competent evidence that plaintiff has failed to mitigate damages, then said failure to mitigate damages is alleged as a complete or partial bar to plaintiff’s claims in this case,” the answer said.
UPDATE
Counsel for John filed a reply to the restaurant’s new matter on Oct. 19, denying that John’s injuries were not caused by the restaurant and were otherwise caused by pre-existing or other conditions.
“[This allegation] is a statement of incorporation to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, [the allegation] is denied and strict proof is required. [This allegation] is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. It is therefore denied and strict proof is demanded,” per the plaintiff’s reply to new matter.
“John respectfully requests judgment against defendants in an amount in excess of the applicable limits, plus interest, costs and relief, as a jury may deem proper and all other such relief as law and equity require.”
For counts of negligence and strict/product liability, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of $50,000, and a trial by jury.
The plaintiff is represented by Alexander H. Lindsay Jr. of the Lindsay Law Firm, in Butler.
The defendant is represented by David M. McQuiston of Thomson Rhodes & Cowie, in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-20-009490
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com