PITTSBURGH – A Pittsburgh woman has settled negligence claims with a Western Pennsylvania property manager and landlord, after alleging that those actions led her to suffer third-degree burns when she went to take a shower.
Tanika L. Hancock first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on March 8 versus Judy Pison of New Kensington and Lockwood Management, LLC, of Export.
In March 2019, Hancock lived at 2006 Monroe Street, Apartment No. 1 located in Swissvale, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania 15218. Ms. Hancock’s apartment was owned and operated by Lockwood Management LLC. At that time, Judy Pison, was the property manager of 2006 #1 Monroe Street.
“On March 26, 2019, Hancock turned on her shower to a normal temperature setting. Maintenance had been performing work on water heater units in Hancock’s apartment building in the days leading up to March 26, 2019. Hancock entered the shower and stood under the shower head, and remained in the shower for a short time before she noticed severe burning to her left side,” the suit stated.
“As she felt the burning sensation, Hancock exited the shower and went to lay on her bed. Hancock then noticed that the skin on her upper left arm began to bubble and fall off.”
In going to the emergency department of University of Pittsburgh Medical Center – Shadyside Hospital, Hancock learned the extent of her injuries.
“At UPMC Shadyside, it was determined that Hancock had burns covering five percent of her body, including significant burns to her upper left arm and left flank as a result of the hot shower water. Hancock’s upper left arm and chest wall had sustained second-degree burns, while Hancock’s left trunk had sustained third-degree burns,” per the suit.
“Whenever water surpasses 120 degrees Fahrenheit, it can cause substantial burns. The American Burn Association states that hot water can cause third-degree burns in one second at 156 degrees Fahrenheit, in two seconds at 149 degrees Fahrenheit, in five seconds at 140 degrees Fahrenheit, and in 15 seconds at 133 degrees Fahrenheit. Hancock’s wounds were found to be likely caused from her coming in contact with a scalding liquid.”
Hancock underwent multiple burn wound excisions and skin grafts, requiring dressing changes and increased medications to cope with the pain. Currently, the suit said she continues to suffer from the effects of the incident and requires home health care due to ongoing issues with mobility of her left arm.
The defendants filed an answer to the complaint, along with new matter on April 15. The answer denied the plaintiff’s allegations in their entirety.
“By way of further answer, should further answer be required, the allegations constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of still further answer, after reasonable investigation defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments. Accordingly, same are denied and proof is demanded at trial,” the answer read.
In new matter, the defendants asserted several affirmative defenses – including the alleged failure of the plaintiff to mitigate damages and the provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act.
“Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action. Any injuries or damages allegedly sustained by the plaintiff were due to the conduct of third parties over whom these defendants had no control. Defendants plead the doctrine of superseding, intervening cause as an affirmative defense and a bar, in whole or in part, to recovery,” the new matter stated.
“Defendants plead the doctrine of assumption of the risk as an affirmative defense and a bar to recovery; the provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act a bar, in whole or in part, to recovery; Defendants plead the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations as a bar to recovery; Defendants plead the failure of the plaintiff to mitigate damages as a bar, in whole or in part, to recovery.”
On May 3, counsel for Hancock replied to the defendants’ new matter, disregarding it entirely.
UPDATE
Counsel for Pison filed a stipulation for dismissal of the case on June 15.
“It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between all counsel that all claims, including cross claims, against Judy Pison in this matter are hereby withdrawn and Judy Pison is dismissed from this case without prejudice. In the event the parties through discovery or otherwise shall subsequently determine that Judy Pison should be re-joined, solely on theories of liability raised in plaintiff’s complaint, as defendant, the parties may do so without regard to any statute of limitations or any laches defense. In the event that Judy Pison is re-joined, she shall have available all other defenses it wishes to pursue,” the stipulation read.
“It is further stipulated that the caption is hereby amended to omit reference to Judy Pison. It is further stipulated that all references to Judy Pison in the pleadings of this matter are hereby stricken.”
Prior to settlement and for a lone count of negligence, the plaintiff was seeking compensatory and consequential damages in excess of the jurisdictional arbitration limits, together with interest, costs of suit, any other relief this Honorable Court deems appropriate to recover for which this suit is filed and a trial by jury.
The plaintiff was represented by Adam P. Murdock and Mark D. Troyan of Robert Peirce & Associates, in Pittsburgh.
The defendants were represented by Peter B. Skeel of the Law Office of Kelley A. Morrone, in Wexford.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-21-001943
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com