PITTSBURGH – A pair of elevator manufacturers argue amongst each other that they are not liable in the case of a Western Pennsylvania woman, who became trapped inside a pair of elevator doors due to a faulty sensor – with each company claiming the incident was the other’s fault.
Katherine L. Gardone of Monroeville first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Aug. 7 versus Schindler Elevator Corporation of Morristown, N.J. and Walnut Ivanhoe Partners, LP, also of Monroeville.
“Upon information and belief, defendant Walnut owned, maintained and controlled real property located at 4175 Ivanhoe Drive, Monroeville, PA 15146. Schindler owned, maintained and controlled the elevator located there and built, installed, and maintained that same elevator,” according to the lawsuit.
“At all times relevant hereto, the plaintiff, resided and was lawfully on the premises of the defendants. On or about Sept. 4, 2018, plaintiff was attempting to use the above-referenced elevator, when, suddenly and without warning, the elevator doors closed on her due to a fault sensor causing her to become lodged between the doors and to suffer serious injury.”
The plaintiff claimed the defendants failed to take proper precautions such as warning the plaintiff of the danger when it had actual knowledge or should have reasonably known about the defective elevator, failed to properly, install and/or maintain the defective elevator and allowed the defective elevator top to remain in operation for an unreasonable amount of time, among other negligent failures.
Gardone said she suffered fractured ribs, a torn left rotator cuff requiring surgery, severe and continual mid-back pain, severe and continual knee pain and general loss of vitality and good health.
Schindler filed an answer to the complaint and an accompanying cross-claim on Sept. 24.
“This defendant did not have possession and control of the subject premises, nor of the elevator allegedly involved in the incident giving rise to the within action, such possession and control remaining with the owner and/or its authorized agent,” per Schindler.
“If plaintiff sustained any injuries and damages as alleged, a fact which this defendant does not admit, then, in that event, those damages and injuries may have been the result of the conduct of individuals over whom this defendant had no duty, nor opportunity, to exercise control and, therefore, this defendant should have no liability therefore.”
Additionally, the Schindler Corporation replied that all or part of plaintiffs’ claims may be barred by virtue of the applicable Statute of Repose.
“As set forth in Paragraph 3 of the terms and conditions of the agreement between this defendant and defendant Walnut Ivanhoe Partners, L.P., should this defendant be determined to have any liability under the claim being asserted, such liability being denied, then, in that event, this defendant cannot be liable for damages in excess of the annual price of the agreement,” counsel for Schindler said.
Plus, Schindler filed a cross-claim against its co-defendant Walnut Ivanhoe Partners.
“In the event that plaintiff has sustained the injuries and damages as alleged, a fact which this defendant does not admit, then, to that extent, those damages and injuries are the sole and proximate result of the conduct of defendant, Walnut Ivanhoe Partners. L.P., and, therefore, said defendant, Walnut Ivanhoe Partners, L.P., should be held solely to plaintiff therefore,” the cross-claim said, in part.
“In the alternative, should this defendant be held liable for any sums whatsoever, such liability being denied, then, in that event, defendant, Walnut Ivanhoe Partners. L.P should be held liable over to this defendant for contribution and/or indemnity.”
UPDATE
On Oct. 8, Walnut Ivanhoe Partners lodged a similar cross-claim against Schindler Elevator Corporation, denying liability from the cross-claim on its own part and directing it toward its co-defendant.
More than two weeks later, on Oct. 24, Schindler Elevator Corporation responded to Walnut Ivanhoe Partners’ cross-claim, also in a denying fashion.
“The allegations set forth in Paragraph 30 of defendant’s, Walnut Ivanhoe Partners, LP’s, cross-claim constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response may be required, this defendant continues to deny any liability to plaintiff, either solely and/or jointly, and further denies any liability to co-defendant, Walnut Ivanhoe Partners, LP, for contribution and/or indemnity,” the response stated.
For counts of negligence, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of the applicable arbitration limits, exclusive of interest, costs of suit, and a trial by jury.
The plaintiff is represented by Wayne M. Chiurazzi and Edward W. Wertman of The Chiurazzi Law Group, in Pittsburgh.
The defendants are represented by Steven H. Wyckoff of Wyckoff Law Offices and Andrew D. Sysak of Andracki Sysak & Artman, both in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-20-008464
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com