SCRANTON – A Pennsylvania coal company has denied liability and associated claims that is responsible for a welder’s second-degree burns sustained in a “catastrophic” gas explosion at a job site, and further argued against consolidation of multiple matters connected to the same incident.
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.
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.”
UPDATE
Reading Anthracite filed an answer to the complaint on Oct. 27, denying its assertions and putting forth 27 separate affirmative defenses, with some of them being:
• Plaintiff’s claims are or may be barred or limited by application of the terms and provisions of Pennsylvania’s Fair Share Act;
• By plaintiff’s actions at the time, date, and place stated in the complaint, plaintiff assumed the risk of any and all injuries and/or damages which he is alleged to have suffered;
• The plaintiff’s claims are barred by the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act;
• Defendant had no notice or knowledge of the defect as alleged by plaintiff, which bars the plaintiff’s recovery;
• If there was a dangerous and/or defective condition present on the premises in question, which is specifically denied, the plaintiff was and/or should have been aware of the alleged condition and failed to act properly under the circumstances.
Additionally, Reading Anthracite motioned on Oct. 31 against consolidation of the cases which Shover had earlier requested.
“Here, while there may be some common issues of fact, the issues confronting the jury will be significantly different and will cause confusion if tried as one matter. Under the Reading action and Federal Insurance action, they jury will be required to interpret contact that exist between the parties. Expert testimony will relate to business operations, administrative enforcement (MSHA), property damages and construction,” the opposition brief stated.
“Further, the jury will be required to determine a right to subrogation in the Federal Insurance action. In the Shover action, there will be a defense of worker’s compensation that was raised by Reading Anthracite in the Shover action. That will further confuse the jury if the matters are tried together. The attorneys for RAC are different in each action. Each will be required to separately prosecute and defend different issues related to the three separate actions. Finally, the Reading action has been ongoing since February of 2020. All written discovery is completed or near completion. The consolidation of the Reading action with the Shover action will delay Reading Anthracite’s right to recovery.”
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