PHILADELPHIA – The City of Philadelphia and local election entities are trying to dismiss litigation initiated by a poll worker, who alleged she suffered a broken arm when she was asked to repair a faulty machine herself.
Janice Tangradi of Philadelphia first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on May 12 versus the City of Philadelphia, City Commissioners Lisa M. Deely, Al Schmidt and Anthony Clark, City Commission Employee Jane Doe, all of Philadelphia, Danaher Corporation of Washington, D.C., Total Control, Inc. of Newtown and ABC Corporation.
“Tangradi was an elected committee person for the City of Philadelphia, representing Ward 66B. As an elected committee person, Tangradi received no taxpayer-funded compensation, and was responsible, among other duties, for monitoring the polling places in her Ward on Election Day. On May 21, 2019, pursuant to her duties as a committee person, Tangradi was a poll watcher at the polling center for Ward 66B, which was located at the Palmer Playground, 3305 Comly Road, Philadelphia, PA 19154,” the suit said.
“At approximately 10:21 am, Tangradi was notified by one of the poll workers that voting machine #1, a Danaher Shouptronic 1242 designed/manufactured/sold by defendant Danaher Corporation and/or Total Control, Inc. and/or ABC Corporation, was not working. Tangradi immediately called the City Commissioners office and requested that a technician be sent to repair voting machine #1.”
The suit added the defendants never provided Tangradi with any training on the repair or maintenance of the Danaher Shouptronic 1242 voting machine, and did not have any polices/directives/procedures regarding the repair and maintenance of said voting machines – yet defendant Doe requested the plaintiff attempt to fix the machine herself.
“The Danaher Shouptronic 1242 voting machine comes as a unit, and is designed to fold up for transportation and/or storage. At the rear of voting machine is an approximately 3’ by 3’ box, approximately 8” deep, the front of which houses that actual voting machine. There were no warnings on the box or anywhere on the voting machine prohibiting persons from stepping inside the box area or warning of the dangers of stepping inside the box area,” the suit said.
“After Tangradi informed defendant City Commission employee Jane Doe that the machine was plugged in, defendant Jane Doe affirmatively ordered/directed plaintiff to read her information on a label that was located on the rear of the voting machine. The print on the label was very small, and because of the way defendant Danaher Corporation and/or Total Control Inc. and/or ABC Corporation designed the voting machine, to read the label the plaintiff had to step inside of the box.”
Subsequently, Tangradi stepped into the box with her right foot first, and then her left foot, which immediately became stuck in the left corner of the box. As Tangradi attempted to dislodge her left foot, she lost her balance, and because there was nothing to grab on to, fell to the ground, causing severe injuries.
“The plaintiff was a foreseeable victim of the defective, dangerously designed and manufactured Danaher Shouptronic 1242, and all defendants failed to warn her of the dangers of stepping inside the box located at the rear of the voting machine,” per the suit.
“As the direct and proximate result of all defendants’ acts and omissions, the plaintiff suffered serious injuries, including a severely broken left arm, requiring surgery and the insertion of a plate and seven screws, two torn rotator cuffs, and ongoing care, treatment and physical therapy.”
As a result of the incident, the plaintiff said she has both lost her job and incurred nearly $350,000 in medical bills and costs.
UPDATE
Counsel for the City defendants filed a motion to dismiss the suit on June 14, for failure to a state claim. The City did not believe that Tangradi adequately proved her claims of state-created danger and civil rights violations.
“In order to maintain a municipal liability claim against the City and Commissioners, plaintiff must allege an underlying constitutional violation. Even if the Court were to analyze plaintiff’s state created danger claim, it fails to meet at least three of the required elements, necessitating the dismissal of her Monell claim,” the dismissal motion stated, in part.
“Furthermore, plaintiff fails to plead a cognizable Monell claim in that she includes only two conclusory allegations parroting the legal standard and does not identify prior instances of misconduct caused by allegedly inadequate training. For these reasons, defendants, the City and Commissioners Deely and Schmidt, seek dismissal of the claim against them.”
The City argued that Tangradi did not show that the harm ultimately caused was foreseeable and fairly direct; a state actor acted with a degree of culpability that shocks the conscience; and a state actor affirmatively used his or her authority in a way that created a danger to the citizen or that rendered the citizen more vulnerable to danger than had the state not acted at all.
All of the above are required to prove a state-created danger existed.
“It was plaintiff’s decision, not that of Jane Doe, to step directly inside of the box instead of approaching the machine from either side. Following Jane Doe’s alleged instruction to read a label, plaintiff placed her right foot, followed by her left foot, into the box. Her left foot then became stuck,” the motion stated.
“Thereafter, in attempting to dislodge her foot, plaintiff lost her balance and ‘because there was nothing to grab on to,’ fell to the ground. These intervening events sever any direct connection between Jane Doe’s action and plaintiff’s ultimate injury. Simply put, the alleged instruction to read information on a machine is far too attenuated to support liability.”
For counts of state-created danger and civil rights violations through Monell and under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, strict liability and negligence, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages against each of the defendants in excess of $175,000, plus interest, costs, attorney’s fees and delay damages.
The plaintiff is represented by Alan E. Denenberg of Abramson & Denenberg, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Shannon G. Zabel of the City of Philadelphia’s Law Department and Mitchell S. Berger of Ryan Brown McDonnell Berger Gibbons & LaRocca, both also in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:21-cv-02165
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com