ALLENTOWN – Litigation from a man maimed by a commercial food processing machine against the corporations responsible for manufacturing and marketing the device, has been settled.
Alfredo Santiago of Lancaster initially filed a writ of summons in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on April 21, 2020 versus ITW Food Equipment Group, LLC of Troy, Ohio, Hobart World Headquarters of Harrisburg, ILC Investments and ILC Investments Holdings, Inc. of Glenview, Ill. plus Hobart Corporation of Glenview, Ill. and Commack, N.Y.
(The action was later removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on March 23, 2021.)
The device itself was named the “Hobart Mixer Grinder”, and it was purchased by grocer Weis Markets, Inc. for approximately $8,470 on Jan. 10, 2008, and used at its Lancaster store.
It is believed that the defendants knew or, through reasonable care, should have known that the subject product’s hopper lid interlock was not properly or reasonably functioning or operating at the time of plaintiff’s injury and before.
“On April 30, 2018, plaintiff suffered injuries to his left arm and extremity when he was injured by the subject product, which defendants sold without feasible safety features that would have prevented plaintiff’s injuries and damages,” the suit stated.
“It is believed and averred that defendants, through their servicing employees, servants, agents, and/or designated authorized repair personnel, performed maintenance, service, repair, and inspections of the subject product after its sale, before plaintiff’s injury and that defendants had inspected the subject product and had stated that it had performed repairs on its controls before plaintiff’s injury and accident of April 30, 2018.”
The suit added that the defendants failed to properly or reasonably inspect, maintain and repair the subject product with reasonable care, and furthermore, that the plaintiff’s medical costs exceed $45,957.71 as of Aug. 5, 2019.
“Plaintiff suffered permanent and severe injuries that include: (a) injuries to his bones, muscles, ligaments, and nerves, and sequalae thereto; (b) injuries and damage to his left arm and extremity, including, but not limited to (i) an open posterior dislocation to his left elbow and (ii) a Type I or II open displaced fracture of his coronoid process to his left ulna; (c) injuries and damages requiring emergency medical treatment, including a closed reduction to plaintiff’s left elbow operation; (d) medical treatment and costs, past and future, (e) wage loss, past and future, (f) pain, suffering, past and future; (g) disfigurement; (h) lost enjoyment of life’s pleasures, past and future and (i) other damages, some or all of which are permanent in nature,” per the suit.
“Plaintiff was a young man at the time of this incident and will suffer from his injuries caused by defendant’s negligence and/or defendant’s defective product for the rest of his life.”
On March 30, the defendants filed an answer to the complaint, largely denying its allegations and the version of events it presents, and asserting 19 affirmative defenses.
“Plaintiff’s claims are barred because he acted in a highly reckless manner, thereby constituting the sole or superseding cause of the alleged damages. Plaintiff’s alleged damages, if any, were caused by plaintiff’s own negligence, fault, conduct, or carelessness. Such conduct may bar or diminish any recovery of alleged damages, if any, as set forth in Pennsylvania’s Fair Share Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A. Section 7102,” the answer read, in part.
“Plaintiff’s use of the mixer-grinder was contrary to the express, adequate warnings that are set forth on the product and in its accompanying manual, instructions, and other literature. Defendants are not liable to the extent plaintiff knew, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, of such instructions and warnings and yet failed to follow them.”
The defendants added that the plaintiff’s claims are barred or limited, in whole or in part, by Pennsylvania’s Fair Share Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A. Section 7102, among other defenses.
UPDATE
A judicial order dated April 26 explained that the case was settled and thus, was dismissed with prejudice. Terms of the settlement are not final and were not disclosed.
“It having been reported that the parties have settled the above-captioned action, and pursuant to Rule 41.1(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of this Court, it is hereby ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice, pursuant to agreement of counsel without costs. The Court shall retain jurisdiction for a period of 90 days while the parties finalize the written settlement agreement,” U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Edward G. Smith said.
Prior to settlement and for counts of negligence, strict liability and breach of express and implied warranties, the plaintiff was seeking damages, jointly and severally, in excess of $50,000, plus interest, costs and delay damages from said defendants.
The plaintiff was represented by Arthur L. Bugay of Galfand Berger, in Philadelphia.
The defendants were represented by Robert William Stanko of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, also in Philadelphia, plus Anthony J. Martucci and Elizabeth B. Wright of Thompson Hine, in Cleveland, Ohio.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 5:21-cv-01383
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 200401006
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com