PITTSBURGH – A Pennsylvania auto dealership has filed numerous affirmative defenses from a survival and wrongful death lawsuit brought against it and General Motors, after the plaintiff’s son was burned alive and killed in an accident.
Bonnie Winkler (as the administratrix of the estate of Joseph M. Winkler) of Penfield first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Nov. 23 versus General Motors, LLC of Wilmington, Del. and Kurt Johnson Auto Sales, of DuBois.
“On Dec. 29, 2019, Joseph Winkler was the driver and operator of the Chevy Cruze, which was an automobile designed, developed, manufactured, tested, assembled, and/or distributed by defendant GM. On that date, the Chevy Cruze was traveling south on SR-255 and traveled off the west side of the roadway,” the suit stated.
“The Chevy Cruze continued to travel southwest before overturning and coming to rest, catching fire. A fire erupted and spread to the passenger compartment fully engulfing the Chevy Cruze burning Joseph Winkler alive.”
The suit said the defendant GM knew or should have known that the Chevy Cruze was defective, not crashworthy and not escape-worthy, and knew or should have known that the Chevy Cruze was defective because its crash protection design did not comport with the expectations of an ordinary consumer.
“As a direct and proximate result of the defective condition of the Chevy Cruze, plaintiff’s decedent, Joseph M. Winkler, sustained catastrophic personal injuries, which ultimately resulted in his death,” per the suit.
“As set forth above, defendants’ conduct and defective product design increased the risk of harm to plaintiff’s decedent, Joseph M. Winkler and was a substantial factor in causing the death of Joseph M. Winkler.”
UPDATE
Kurt Johnson Auto Sales, LLC filed preliminary objections in the case on Jan. 18, raising various differences with how the claims against were pled, first in the matter of the allegedly defective vehicle.
“Throughout the complaint, plaintiff invokes a collection of generalized, boilerplate conclusions and/or fails to set forth factual bases for her conclusions, in violation of the fact pleading requirements of Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a), which mandates that the materials facts upon which a claim is based shall be stated,” the objections stated, in part.
“Additionally, plaintiff riddles her pleading with jargon-filled, unspecific references to supposed technology that may or may not have existed at the time of the accident, and which may or may not exist to this day, depending on what plaintiff means by her choices of terms.”
This was followed by an answer and new matter on March 22, containing dozens of affirmative defenses.
“Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against this defendant. Plaintiff’s claims are barred and/or must be reduced by the doctrine of assumption of the risk. Plaintiff’s claims are barred and/or must be reduced by the doctrine of contributory and/or comparative negligence,” the answer stated, among numerous defenses.
“In the event it is determined that the plaintiff suffered the injuries and damages alleged, then said injuries and damages were not caused by this defendant, but were caused by other individuals and/or entities over whom this defendant exercised no control and for whose conduct this defendant cannot be held liable. In the event it is determined that the plaintiff sustained any injuries and/or damages, then said injuries and damages were the sole, proximate and direct result of pre-existing, intervening, and/or superseding causes not within the control of this defendant and for which this defendant cannot be held liable.”
The defendant also raised the applicable statute of limitations as a complete bar to the plaintiff’s claims, among many, many other defenses.
In a reply to the defendant’s new matter filed on April 7, counsel for the plaintiff did not respond substantively to the defendant’s counter-claims and said they were not legally required to do so.
“[These allegations are] neither admitted nor denied, and call for a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, all allegations contained therein are denied,” the reply stated.
For counts of survival and wrongful death sounding in both negligence and strict liability, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of the applicable arbitration limits, plus a trial by jury.
The plaintiff is represented by Jaime D. Jackson of Atlee Hall in Lancaster, and Jason M. Schiffman of the Schiffman Firm, in Pittsburgh.
The defendants are represented by Mark R. Lane of Dell Moser Lane & Loughney, also in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-20-011954
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com