LANCASTER – One defendant named in a negligence lawsuit centered on a security system installer’s electrocution at a Lancaster hotel argued that it was not responsible for that event, and did not contribute to the circumstances which caused it.
Luis A. Cortes Jr. and Johanna L. Cortes of Lancaster first filed suit in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas on June 4 versus Robert M. Whiteford Jr., Inc. of Red Lion, Wickersham Construction and Engineering, Inc., Wonderland Realty, LLC, Wonderland Amusement Management, LLC and Palace Entertainment of Lancaster, Trago Mechanical of Conestoga and D.M. Hartman Electrical, LLC, of York.
“On Aug. 4, 2019, plaintiff Luis Cortes was an employee of Darnell Security where he was responsible for installing fire, security and camera systems. Yarnell Security was contracted by the defendants to provide services at the Cartoon Network Hotel, located at 2285 Lincoln Highway East, Lancaster, PA 17602, which, at the time of the accident that is the subject of this complaint was still under renovation/construction,” the suit said.
“At approximately 7:45 a.m., plaintiff Luis Cortes was on a 10’ A-frame ladder pulling wire in the east end of the main hall on the first floor of the Cartoon Network Hotel. As part of his assigned work task, he was installing a fire alarm system. While feeding the wire through an existing hole into the mechanical room, he came into contact with exposed and energized wires, and was electrocuted and was violently thrown from the 7th rung of the ladder onto the concrete door.”
As part of a subsequent health and safety incident report, Yarnell Security detailed the accident, along with photographs of the exposed wires and active breaker. The wires were secured and the active breaker was locked out.
The suit said that the defendants had a duty to warn Cortes of the danger, and negligently failed to do so.
“As a direct result of defendants’ acts/omissions, plaintiff Luis Cortes suffered serious and permanent bodily injuries, including but not limited to, burns to his right hand and fingers, concussion, low back pain with sciatica, nerve damage and loss of sensation, which resulted in substantial medical care and treatment and lost time from work,” according to the suit.
“Defendants had a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect plaintiff Luis Cortes, from bodily harm by inspecting, maintaining, investigating and securing the aforementioned live and exposed electrical wires or by other affirmative acts, such as warning plaintiff Luis Cortes of the existence of the aforesaid dangerous condition.”
UPDATE
An attorney for Trago Mechanical, Inc. filed an answer to the complaint on July 12, denying the claims made and further providing new matter and cross-claims.
“All claims asserted and/or implied against answering defendant are barred and/or limited by the negligence of other parties and/or entities in causing the damages at issue. Plaintiffs’ claims may be barred or limited by the application of the Pennsylvania Fair Share Act. Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,” the new matter stated, in part.
“At all times relevant hereto, answering defendant complied with all applicable construction codes, county, township, and city laws, ordinances and regulations. No act and/or action, or omission on the part of answering defendant was the direct and/or proximate cause of plaintiffs’ injuries. Any acts or omissions alleged were caused by the intervening superseding acts and/or omissions of third parties over whom answering defendant had no control and/or duty to control.”
Per the answer, all claims asserted or implied against the answering defendant are barred and/or limited by any failure to mitigate damages and by the doctrine of contributory and/or comparative negligence, and the answering defendant acted reasonably with due care and caution under the circumstances there and then existing.
According to the cross-claims, Trago levied blame for the incident on the remainder of its co-defendants.
On July 22, the plaintiff responded to Trago’s answer and denied it fully.
“The allegations set forth in Paragraphs 114-123 of defendant’s new matter are conclusions of law to which no response is required according to the Rules of Civil Procedure and the same is denied. To the extent that material facts are alleged, they are denied for the reasons contained in plaintiffs’ complaint, which is incorporated herein as though set forth in full,” the plaintiff’s response said.
“By way of further response, plaintiffs in no way contributed to their injuries, which were caused solely by the negligence and carelessness of defendant(s). To the contrary, plaintiffs conducted themselves in a safe, prudent, proper and careful manner, and they satisfied all standards of care applicable to their conduct. Moreover, strict proof of the truth of any and all allegations contained in defendant’s new matter is demanded at the time of trial.”
For multiple counts of negligence and loss of consortium, the plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages in excess of $50,000, plus interest, costs of suit and delay damages.
The plaintiffs are represented by Thomas J. Sabatino of Georgelis Injury Law Firm, in Lancaster.
The defendants are represented by Sean P. Hannon of Dell Moser Lane & Loughney in Pittsburgh, Christopher D. Hillsley of McGivney Kluger Clark & Intoccia and Andrew J. Connolly and Alexandra M. Perry of Post & Schell, all in Philadelphia, plus John A. Lucy of Thomas Thomas & Hafer in Harrisburg,
Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas case CI-21-03600
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com