JOHNSTOWN – A federal judge has dismissed breach of warranty claims without prejudice for later re-argument, in a lawsuit brought by the mother of a young Pennsylvania man killed in a work-related incident with a trash truck.
Janice R. Miller (individually and as administratrix of the Estate of Barry Jacob Miller) of Summerhill first filed suit in the Cambria County Court of Common Pleas on March 31, 2020 against The Heil Co. (doing business as “Heil Environmental”) and Environmental Solutions Group, LLC of Chattanooga, Tenn., and Dover Corporation of Downers Grove, Ill.
(The litigation was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on May 13, 2020.)
On July 2, 2018, the decedent, 19-year-old Barry Jacob Miller, was performing his job duties as an employee of Pro Disposal, a waste collection company. Early that morning, Barry and his co-workers were unloading a dumpster at a property in Johnstown.
The truck being used had a container lifting system which included a wire cable and hook, which attached to the rear of the dumpster in order to raise and lower the dumpster during the collection process. While in the process of raising and/or lowering the dumpster, Barry was operating the lifting system controls on the passenger side of the vehicle, adjacent to the garbage truck’s hopper.
“While the dumpster was in a raised position on the rear of the subject garbage truck, the truck’s wire cable came out of, elevated above or otherwise escaped the container lifting system’s cable guide and the dumpster swung and/or rotated to the passenger side of the garbage truck, pinning Barry Miller between the dumpster and the passenger side of the subject garbage truck,” according to the lawsuit.
“As a direct result of being pinned between the dumpster and the subject garbage truck, Barry Miller sustained serious injuries that ultimately caused his death.”
The suit added the defendants should have known that the subject garbage truck was faulty and defective in its container lifting control system, and acted to reduce or eliminate the container swing hazard from its design.
Heil Co. moved to dismiss the lawsuit on May 18, arguing the plaintiff failed to state claims upon which relief could be granted in reference to the warranty claims listed in the lawsuit, and that Paragraph 30 supposedly contains “catch-all” language as to the garbage truck’s alleged mechanical defects, that lacks the requisite specificity needed to adequately prepare a defense.
On June 8, Miller responded to the dismissal motion, calling it “flawed” and added that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) does not provide the relief Heil seeks and for that reason alone, its motion to strike must be denied.
Miller’s counsel asserted Heil’s dismissal motion should be thrown out and the company should provide a proper answer to the complaint within 14 days.
UPDATE
However, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Judge Stephanie L. Haines ruled in a memorandum opinion issued on March 11 that the breach of warranty claims would be dismissed, without prejudice.
“Plaintiff restates the required elements for asserting a breach of express warranty, but does not plead any facts as to the specific terms within the express warranty that would support these elements. Without any indication from plaintiff regarding the contents or circumstances of the alleged express warranty, the Court cannot determine whether defendant breached an express warranty,” Haines said.
“Here, plaintiff has not pleaded any facts to support that defendant issued a warranty, the express terms of that warranty, or that it intended to extend the warranty to Miller. The Court rejects defendant’s argument that plaintiff must attach a written express warranty to the complaint as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have no such requirement. However, a basic description of the express terms of the warranty is needed in order for the Court to determine the viability of plaintiff’s claims.”
Additionally, Haines explained that while the plaintiff sufficiently made a case for a breach of express warranty claim, she did not do likewise for a breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.
“Plaintiff’s complaint does not plead any facts that support that defendant had reason to know of the buyer’s particular purpose at the time of the sale of the truck and that the buyer was relying on the seller’s expertise. However, given the specialized, commercial nature and functions of the truck, the Court will dismiss this claim,” Haines said.
“Plaintiff has titled to state a claim for breach of express warranty and breach of implied warranty for fitness for a particular purpose, but the dismissal of these claims shall be without prejudice to reassert these claims in an amended complaint, insofar as the facts of this case support such claims under Pennsylvania law. Defendant’s motion to dismiss as to plaintiff’s implied warranty for merchantability and request to strike certain subparagraphs under Rule 12(e) shall be denied.”
For counts of negligence, strict liability, wrongful death and survival, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of the arbitration limits of the Court, plus interests and costs.
The plaintiff is represented by Bradley R. Smith and Debra A. Jensen of Galfand Berger, in Philadelphia.
Defendant Heil Co. is represented by Walter H. Swayze III, Asher A. Block, Michael B. Pullano and Donald H. Smith of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, in Wayne and Pittsburgh.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 3:20-cv-00091
Cambria County Court of Common Pleas case 2020-1534
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com