SCRANTON – Wrongful death litigation against the manufacturers of an allegedly defective heater which exploded and killed a man on a deer hunting trip, has been settled in a Scranton federal court.
John J. Martin, Esq. (as executor of the Estate of Gregory C. Scheer Sr. and Karen Scheer, and individually) of Honesdale initially filed suit in the Wayne County Court of Common Pleas on Feb. 12 versus Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores East, LP of Bentonville, Ark., and Enerco Group, Inc. and Mr. Heater, Inc., of Cleveland, Ohio.
“Plaintiffs believe and therefore aver that at all time relevant hereto, defendants, Enerco Group, Inc. and Mr. Heater, Inc., were in the business of manufacturing the propane heating unit commonly referred to as the ‘Portable Buddy,” the suit stated.
“On Dec. 3, 2019, the deceased Gregory C. Scheer Sr. purchased a ‘Portable Buddy’ from the Walmart store located at 777 Old Willow Avenue, Honesdale, Wayne County, Pennsylvania 18431. Gregory was killed on or about Dec. 7, 2019, when the portable heater that he was using in his deer hunting stand exploded.”
The suit said that as a direct result of negligence on the part of the defendants, Enerco Group, Inc. and Mr. Heater, Inc., in the engineering, design, and/or manufacturing of the portable heater, and negligence on the part of Walmart in selling a defective product, Gregory C. Scheer, Sr. was killed through no negligence of his own.
“As a direct and proximate cause of defendants design and/or assembly and/or sale of the product, Gregory Scheer Sr. sustained severe conscious pain and suffering between the time of the explosion and the time of his death sometime later,” per the suit.
“His Estate sustained additional expenses, including, but not limited to funeral expenses and medical bills. Plaintiff, Karen Scheer, surviving widow of Gregory Scheer Sr. sustained pecuniary loss, mental anguish, emotional pain and suffering, loss of society, loss of companionship, loss of comfort, loss of protection, loss of care, loss of attention, loss of advice, loss of training, loss of counsel and loss of guidance.”
The defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on March 2. Enerco Group, Inc. and Mr. Heater, Inc. filed an answer to the complaint on March 29, while Walmart also did so on the same day, albeit separately.
“Plaintiffs’ complaint fails, in whole or in part, to state a cause of action against the Enerco defendants upon which relief may be granted by the Court. Plaintiffs’ damages, if any, were solely or partly the proximate result of their own negligence. No act or omission of the Enerco defendants was the proximate cause of plaintiffs’ alleged damages,” an answer from Enerco and Mr. Heater stated, partially.
“Plaintiffs’ damages, if any, were solely or partly the result of acts or omissions on the part of persons or entities other than the Enerco defendants who were not under the control of the Enerco defendants. Plaintiffs’ damages, if any, were the direct and proximate result of misuse or abuse of the heater at issue. Plaintiffs’ causes of action may be barred in whole or in part to the extent that it is determined that the heater at issue may have been materially changed or altered after leaving the manufacturer’s possession.”
Walmart offered similar defensive rationales in their own dismissal motion, in addition to their denial of accepting liability since they didn’t design, manufacture or assemble the product in question.
“If plaintiffs contend that the heater at issue was defective because of inadequate design or construction, the Walmart defendants are not liable as it did not design or construct the heater at issue and because the plan or design for the heater at issue, or the methods or techniques of manufacturing, inspecting, testing, and labeling the heater at issue conformed with the state of the art at the time heater at issue was allegedly sold by the Walmart defendants,” Walmart’s motion read.
“Plaintiffs’ causes of action are barred, in whole or in part, because the heater at issue, at all times material hereto, conformed with applicable standards and specifications, as well as available technological, scientific, and industrial state of the art applicable to such heaters.”
All claims against Walmart were dismissed with prejudice on April 15.
UPDATE
On June 30, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Judge Robert D. Mariani ordered the case marked, which had been preliminarily settled, as dismissed.
“Plaintiffs’ counsel having reported that the parties have settled the above-captioned action, and defendants’ counsel having confirmed the settlement, it is hereby ordered that this action is dismissed without costs and without prejudice to the right, upon good cause shown within 60 days, to reinstate the action if settlement is not consummated,” Mariani said.
“Failure of a party to file a motion for reinstatement, or a motion for an extension of time to consummate the settlement, within the above 60-day time period will result in the automatic conversion of this dismissal from one without prejudice to one with prejudice.”
Prior to settlement and for counts of negligence, strict liability, wrongful death and survival, the plaintiff is seeking $1 million in compensatory damages, plus interest and costs and a trial by jury.
The plaintiffs were represented by John J. Martin of the Law Offices of John J. Martin in Honesdale and Ryan M. Molitoris of Hourigan Luger & Quinn, in Kingston.
The defendants were represented by Rebecca A. Sember-Izsak of Thomas Thomas & Hafer in Pittsburgh, Amy L. Blackmore and Chilton G. Goebel of Saxton & Stump in both Lancaster and Malvern, and Scott R. Schillings of Hinkle Law Firm, in Wichita, Kans.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 3:21-cv-00388
Wayne County Court of Common Pleas case 256-2020
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com