PHILADELPHIA – Litigation between a local couple and a pair of gym equipment companies over alleged negligence where one of them was caused to fall from a piece of fitness equipment and suffer injuries, has been settled.
Careem and Carla Vaughan of Philadelphia first filed a complaint on Jan. 17, 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania versus gym equipment company Technogym USA, Corp. of Fairfield, N.J. and the business that delivers and installs the equipment, Mass Movement, Inc., of Foxborough, Mass.
Careem Vaughan worked as a trainer for Functional Training Center at Merion Cricket Club in Haverford and was demonstrating TRX straps on an Outrace Machine “when the end cap to the overhead mount suddenly and unexpectedly separated from the machine causing the TRX straps to come free and plaintiff to fly backwards to the ground, landing on his buttocks and hands,” according to the lawsuit.
Careem added because of the alleged negligence of the defendants, he suffered major physical and emotional injuries from anxiety and depression to right wrist scapholunate ligament tear.
He sued Technogym for negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranty, while levying an additional count of negligence against Mass Movement.
Carla Vaughan sued both defendants on loss of consortium, stating that because of her husband’s injuries, she has been required to offer special services and care to him, impacting their quality of life.
In an answer to the complaint filed on March 11, Mass Movement steadfastly denied the plaintiffs’ claims in their entirety, filed a cross-claim against co-defendant Technogym and asserted 17 separate affirmative defenses to the lawsuit.
“If it is determined that defendant, Mass Movement, Inc., is liable to the plaintiffs on any count in the plaintiffs’ complaint, this being strictly denied, then Technogym USA Corp. is jointly and severally liable to the plaintiffs, or liable over to defendant, Mass Movement, Inc., by way of contribution and/or indemnification on plaintiffs’ cause of action,” Mass Movement’s answer read, in part.
“If Technogym USA Corp. fails to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Mass Movement, Inc. as also required in the contract, then in that event, Technogym USA Corp. is in breach of contract and Mass Movement, Inc. is then entitled to all damages recoverable in any breach of contract action, as well as all expenses, costs and attorney’s fees incurred in the investigation and defense of this litigation.”
Among the 17 affirmative defenses cited by the plaintiffs in their response to the Vaughans’ litigation were the provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, the application of the terms and provisions of Pennsylvania’s Fair Share Act, the plaintiffs’ assumption of the risk of any and all injuries and/or damages they alleged to have sustained and the complaint failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
UPDATE
On Nov. 25, it was announced by U.S. Magistrate Judge Timothy R. Rice that the case had been settled. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed.
“It having been reported that the issues between the parties in the above action have been settled and upon order of the court pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41.1(b) of the local rules of civil procedure of this Court, it is ordered that the above action is dismissed with prejudice, without costs, pursuant to the agreement of counsel,” Rice stated.
Prior to settlement, the plaintiffs were seeking damages, jointly and/or severally, in excess of $150,000, plus incident costs and other such relief as the Court deems appropriate.
The plaintiffs were represented by J.B. Dilsheimer of Stampone O’Brien Dilsheimer, in Cheltenham.
The defendants were represented by Bradley D. Remick of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin and Henry J. Noye of Bunker & Ray, both in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-00320
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com