PITTSBURGH – Black & Decker has disclaimed all liability for allegedly being the cause of amputation injuries suffered by a woodworker from Northwestern Pennsylvania while using what he referred to as defective electric tools.
Justin S. Wentz of Erie first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Oct. 30 versus Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc. (doing business as “Porter-Cable”) and The Black & Decker Corporation of Towson, Md., Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. of New Britain, Conn. and Porter-Cable Corporation of North Jackson, Tenn.
(All defendants except Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc. were dismissed from the case on Dec. 7.)
“On Aug. 16, 2018, plaintiff was operating the Porter Cable Model 75361 Production Router Base and Model 7519 Production Router [electric motorized power tools] in the course of his of employment at Schutte Woodworking, in a manner intended by defendants and for the foreseeable and intended purposes for which it was designed, manufactured, sold, supplied and serviced by the defendants,” the suit stated.
“As plaintiff was making a groove in a piece of wood, the router malfunctioned and suddenly kicked back the piece of wood plaintiff was routing, causing plaintiff’s right hand to jolt forward into the drill bit of the router. Plaintiff’s right ring and pinky fingers came into contact with the drill bit of the router, causing them to be traumatically amputated.”
In addition to the amputation, Wentz suffered open fracture of his right ring and pinky fingers, traumatic crush injuries, multiple wounds and contusions, mental and psychological injuries, permanent scarring, disability and disfigurement.
UPDATE
The defendants filed to remove the case to federal court in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Nov. 30 and then filed an answer to the case with new matter on Dec. 14.
In addition to denying the plaintiff’s allegations as conclusions of law to which no response was required, the defendant put forward no less than 20 affirmative defenses.
“The defendant denies all allegations contained in the complaint that have not been specifically admitted in the foregoing answer. The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff’s claims may be barred in whole or in part by the applicable statute of limitations and/or repose. Claims may be barred in whole or in part by the equitable doctrines of laches, estoppel and/or unclean hands,” the answer’s new matter stated, in part.
“If plaintiff sustained the injuries as alleged in the complaint, which is expressly denied, such injuries arose from, and were caused by, risks hazards and dangers knowingly assumed by the plaintiff. Plaintiff’s recovery accordingly is barred or should be reduced by plaintiff’s assumption of risk. To the extent that the plaintiff has failed to preserve evidence and/or the router allegedly used by plaintiff as set forth in Paragraph 15 of the complaint, in its immediate post-accident condition, the plaintiff may have no recovery against the defendant as a result of the spoliation of evidence.”
For counts of negligence, strict products liability and breach of warranty, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of the jurisdictional limits of arbitration, plus interest, court costs and all other relief permitted by this Honorable Court, and a trial by jury.
The plaintiff is represented by Peter D. Friday, Kevin S. Burger and John K. Bryan of Friday & Cox, in Pittsburgh.
The defendants are represented by Stuart H. Sostmann of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, also in Pittsburgh.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-01853
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-20-008365
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com