Quantcast

According to Pepsi, shopper-plaintiff didn't prove it was responsible for litany of injuries

PENNSYLVANIA RECORD

Friday, November 22, 2024

According to Pepsi, shopper-plaintiff didn't prove it was responsible for litany of injuries

State Court
Paulmmannix

Mannix | Marcus & Shapira

PITTSBURGH – Pepsi denies all responsibility for injuries suffered by a Western Pennsylvania man, who claims that a company employee collided into him while pushing a cart full of products in a Getgo supermarket in Pittsburgh, leading him to fall and become seriously injured.

Michael Connolly of Oakmont first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Dec. 9 versus Giant Eagle, Inc. (doing business as “Getgo”) and Chad Fink of Pittsburgh, plus Pepsi Co., Inc. of Purchase, N.Y.

“On June 11, 2020, at approximately 11:30 a.m., plaintiff was a business invitee, licensee and/or otherwise legally on defendants’ premises. While on defendants’ premises of the Getgo, the plaintiff was struck by a Pepsi Co., Inc. employee pushing a dolly cart of products, located near the entrance/exit. The contact caused plaintiff to fall to the ground, causing serious and permanent personal injuries,” the suit stated.

“As a direct and consequential result of the negligent and/or careless conduct of the defendants, the plaintiff sustained injuries, including, but not limited to, tearing of the supraspinatus tendon, at humeral head attachment of the left shoulder, as well as injuries to the left leg.”

The plaintiff said the defendants’ collective negligence was the proximate cause of his injuries.

“As a result of these injuries, all or some of which may permanent in nature, and all of which are to plaintiff’s great financial detriment and loss; Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer great anguish, pain, sickness, agony, and embarrassment,” per the suit.

“As a result of defendant’s negligence and carelessness, as aforesaid, plaintiff has suffered permanent scarring and disfigurement. As an additional result of the carelessness and negligence of defendant, plaintiff has suffered emotional injuries, along with the physical injuries suffered. As a further result of plaintiff’s injuries, plaintiff suffered a loss of earnings and/or earning capacity, all to plaintiff’s further loss and detriment.”

UPDATE

Pepsi Co.’s counsel responded with an answer to the case and new matter on March 2, denying the substantive allegations made by the plaintiff as conclusions of law to which no formal response was required.

“Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against PepsiCo, Inc. upon which relief can be granted. At all times relevant and material to this matter, the agents, employees, servants, workers, and/or representatives of PepsiCo, Inc. were not negligent and acted with reasonable, ordinary and prudent care and skill. No action or inaction of any employee, agent, worker, representative, or servant of the defendant caused or contributed to plaintiff’s accident or damages,” the new matter stated.

“Defendant had no notice of any dangerous or defective condition and did not know of, nor could it have known with the exercise of reasonable care, any dangerous or defective condition contributing to plaintiff’s incident. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations, by their failure to sue the proper parties, by the failure to mitigate damages and by his own contributory/comparative negligence and/or assumption of the risk.”

For multiple counts of negligence, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of $35,000, plus all costs, other relief the Court deems just and a trial by jury.

The plaintiff is represented Marc I. Simon of Simon & Simon, in Pittsburgh.

The defendants are represented by Paul M. Mannix of Marcus & Shapira, also in Pittsburgh.

Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-20-012461

From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

More News