PITTSBURGH – Counsel for a concession stand volunteer who suffered third-degree burns within minutes of handling French fries when working at a youth football game, is seeking a state court to compel responses from the league to its discovery requests.
Spring McCann first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas of on Jan. 24, 2020 versus Youth Football League, citing negligence in communicating safety precautions. All parties are of Jefferson Hills.
McCann originally volunteered to help set up during a TJ Youth Football League home game at Thomas Jefferson High School’s football field on Aug. 31, 2019.
A few days before the game, McCann was allegedly asked to help with the concession stand instead, since the setup position no longer existed. She was assigned to work in the hot food aisle, where chafing dishes, filled with hot water, were used to keep French fries warm.
McCann allegedly asked the volunteer before her if there was anything she should know; the previous volunteer said no. McCann then tried to combine a freshly cooked tray of French fries with another tray of older French fries.
In this process of handling the chafing dishes, hot water that was concealed beneath the tray allegedly spilled onto McCann’s right leg and into her socks and shoes, causing second- and third-degree burns on her leg and ankle.
McCann alleged TJ Youth Football League did not offer any training on safety for concession stands volunteers and it did not ask her to sign any waivers.
McCann is seeking damages in excess of $38,576 to for wage loss, permanent disfigurement, and past and future medical expenses.
TJ Youth Football League filed an answer to the complaint with new matter on July 7, 2020, denying the vast majority of McCann’s allegations as conclusions of law, to which no response was required.
In new matter, the league asserted a number of affirmative defenses arguing that McCann’s complaint should be dismissed.
“Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted and plaintiff’s claims are limited to, barred by and subject to the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. Defendant pleads the affirmative defenses of assumption of the risk, comparative negligence, and/or contributory negligence as preserved by Pa.R.C.P. 1030,” the league’s answer stated.
“Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part, to the extent that the evidence at trial establishes the applicability of the doctrines of estoppel, waiver, laches and/or unclean hands. Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by her failure to mitigate damages. Any injuries, losses, and/or damages allegedly sustained by plaintiff, which injuries, losses, and/or damages are denied, are not the result of any action and/or inaction of defendant, but rather of other persons, including plaintiff.”
Moreover, the league claimed that “the actions and/or inactions of plaintiff were the sole cause, or in the alternative, the intervening and/or superseding cause of the incident and all alleged injuries, losses, and/or damages in the complaint.”
“Plaintiff is a member of TJ Youth Football League, and therefore is barred from recovering any damages against the League. Defendant claims statutory immunity pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. Section 8332.1(a), as plaintiff has failed to plead the requisite breach of the standard of care, and said statute bars or limits recovery by plaintiff,” according to the answer.
That same day, counsel for McCann filed a reply to the league’s new matter, denying it entirely.
UPDATE
After a nine-month gap in litigation, the plaintiffs filed a second motion to compel defendant responses to discovery requests.
“On or about April 22, 2021, the plaintiff served upon defendant, plaintiff’s second set of discovery directed to TJ Youth Football League. After the allotted time within which to answer interrogatories and respond to requests for production of documents pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4006 had passed, plaintiff’s counsel wrote to the defendant’s counsel to inquire as to when the answers and responses could be expected,” plaintiff counsel stated in its motion.
“To date, defense counsel has not replied to either of the attached correspondences and has not provided answers and responses to plaintiff’s second set of discovery. The plaintiff’s effort to move this case to trial will be hindered; furthermore, the plaintiff’s ability to prosecute this matter will be severely prejudiced without defendant’s answers to interrogatories and responses to request for production of documents.”
Plaintiff counsel requests the Court to enter an order compelling the defendant to provide full and complete answers and responses to plaintiff’s second set of discovery within 20 days of the date of the order entered by this Court or face sanctions deemed appropriate.
The plaintiff is represented by Philip Chapman of Pribanic & Pribanic, in White Oak.
The defendant is represented by Tara L. Maczuzak of DiBella Geer McAllister Best, in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-20-002043
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com