PITTSBURGH – After more than a year, Bed Bath & Beyond has answered a lawsuit brought by an Allegheny County man, who said his young daughter suffered a head injury and facial scarring after she hit her head on the sharp, angular edge of a restroom’s free-standing sink at its Monroeville store.
Jonathan Matthews (on behalf of his minor child, R.M.) of Allegheny County first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Oct. 29, 2020 versus Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., of Monroeville.
The lawsuit complained that the store did not have a family restroom, requiring his young daughters to use the women’s restroom without his supervision.
“On Sept. 3, 2020, Matthews was lawfully at the subject location with two of his children, R.M. (three years old) and A.M. (eight years old) at Corporation’s retail store at the subject location. While in the subject location, R.M. indicated that she had to use the restroom. Matthews, R.M. and A.M. walked to the public restrooms located in the subject location,” the suit stated.
“Matthews waited outside the women’s restroom while A.M. and R.M. entered the restroom. Upon entry of the restroom, R.M. encountered a ‘free standing’ sink. This sink had sharp angular edges and was the precise height of R.M.’s forehead. R.M.’s head hit the sink’s angular and sharp edge.”
Matthews said he and his children were frightened by the occurrence, and R.M. was taken to the hospital for treatment for her head laceration.
“Corporation has a duty of care and responsibility to their business invitees, including but not limited to R.M. to reasonably and safely design its facilities. As a direct and proximate result of Corporation’s breaches, R.M. suffered physical injury, specifically, her lacerated forehead, and future facial scarring,” per the suit.
“R.M.’s injury was reasonably foreseeable, as Corporation is open to the public, Corporation did not have a “Family” or unisex bathroom, sharp angular edges have a high likelihood of causing injuries including but not limited to lacerations, and almost every human being, between birth and full growth, will at some point, will have their head at the exact height of the sharp angular sink.”
Both parties agreed via mutual stipulation in January to dismiss an allegation of Bed Bath & Beyond being aware of the dangerous construction and design of its restroom sink and failing to warn customers.
UPDATE
Bed Bath & Beyond provided an answer along with new matter on Nov. 5, denying the complaint in its entirety.
“Plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs assumed the risk of all injuries which bars and/or limits all claims. The negligence of plaintiffs bars and/or limits all claims. The claims of plaintiffs are barred and/or limited by the appropriate statute of limitations. Plaintiffs have released defendant. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because of the doctrines of single controversy, merger and bar, res judicata and/or collateral estoppel,” the answer read.
“Plaintiffs’ damages and/or losses, if any, were caused by the acts of third parties over whom answering defendant had no control or right of control. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because of the doctrine of superseding and/or intervening cause. Answering defendant was not negligent and/or careless at any time material hereto. Answering defendant caused no injuries or damage to plaintiffs, and any injury or damage allegedly sustained by plaintiffs was caused by a party other than answering defendant and not within the control of answering defendant. Plaintiffs were comparatively negligent. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred and/or limited by the application of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act.”
Additionally, the new matter argued that the plaintiffs may have been otherwise negligent as may be determined during the course and scope of discovery and/or trial, that their claims are subject to reduction based upon the doctrine of avoidable consequences and failure to mitigate their claimed damages, that their claims are barred by the doctrine of laches and that their claims are barred by Pennsylvania law.
For a count of negligence, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of the arbitration limits of the county, plus costs, interest and a trial by jury.
The plaintiff is represented by Martell Harris of The Trial Law Firm, in Pittsburgh.
The defendant is represented by Elizabeth A. Chalik of Kennedys CMYK, in Philadelphia.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-20-011243
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com