ALLENTOWN – An equipment company has disavowed liability for claims from an associate at a New Jersey Walmart, who alleged he suffered severe head injuries from using a merchandise moving machine, instead re-directing the liability to the machine’s manufacturer through a cross-claim.
Seth Felker of Phillipsburg, N.J. originally filed suit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on Aug. 2 versus National Cart Co. and National Cart, LLC of St. Charles, Mo., National Cart Co. East, LLC of Wilkes-Barre, Winholt Equipment Group of Woodbury, N.Y. and Win-Holt Equipment Corp., of Allentown.
“The Rocket Cart was intended for the exclusive use of Walmart stores and its employees for the purpose of moving merchandise throughout individual Walmart stores to assist in stocking shelves. The Rocket Cart is defective in that the upper shelf will falsely seem to latch securely in place when it is not actually secure, and as a result, the shelf may unexpectedly fall and strike the user of the cart on the head,” the suit stated.
“The defect in the Rocket Carts is that the user may hear a ‘clicking’ sound which indicates to the user that the shelf is securely locked, when, in fact, it is not latched securely. Users of the Rocket Cart are struck and injured because they are unaware that the upper shelf is not securely latched, despite the fact that they have taken the appropriate steps to properly latch the shelf. Head injuries are the most prevalent injuries associated with use of the defective Rocket Cart, because its users are often bent over in front of the Rocket Cart retrieving merchandise to put onto store shelves.”
At all times hereto, Felker was employed as an associate at the Walmart store located on Route 22 in Phillipsburg, N.J.
“On April 11, 2020, plaintiff was struck on the head by the shelf of the Rocket Cart he was using while in the course and scope of his employment with Walmart. As a result of the incident described above, plaintiff was caused to sustain serious and permanent personal injuries,” the suit stated.
“At all times material hereto, defendants controlled all aspects of the manufacture, formulation, design, production, packaging, processing, marketing, sale and/or distribution of the Rocket Cart. The incident described herein and the injuries sustained by the plaintiff as a result of same, were caused solely, entirely and exclusively by virtue of actions and/or inactions of the defendants as more particularly described herein, and were due in no manner whatsoever to any act or failure to act on the part of the plaintiff.”
National Cart Co. filed an answer to the lawsuit on Oct. 20, denying liability for the subject incident in its entirety, providing 18 separate affirmative defenses and asserting a cross-claim on Winholt Equipment Group and Win-Holt Equipment Corp.
In the cross-claim, the manufacturer asserted the damages were the responsibility of the Winholt defendants.
UPDATE
A Nov. 16 answer from the Winholt defendants provided similar rationales against liability, along with a cross-claim against the National Cart Co. defendants.
“Plaintiff’s claims are barred and/or limited by the provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. Plaintiff’s claims are or may be barred or limited by application of the terms and provisions of Pennsylvania’s Fair Share Act. By plaintiff’s actions at the time, date and place stated in the complaint, plaintiff assumed the risk of any and all injuries and/or damages which they is alleged to have suffered. The complaint, or portions thereof, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,” Winholt’s answer stated, in part.
“The damages alleged by plaintiff in the complaint did not result from acts or omissions of answering defendants, but from acts and/or omissions of third parties over whom defendants had no control. The acts or omissions of answering defendants were not a factual cause or legal cause of the injury, loss or damage alleged by the plaintiff. The alleged defective product which is the subject of this suit was not designed, tested, inspected, labeled, packaged, marketed or manufactured by answering defendants. The claims of the plaintiff are barred or limited by the misuse and abuse of any product supplied in any fashion by the answering defendants.”
For counts of strict products liability, negligence, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, the plaintiff is seeking damages, individually, jointly and severally, in excess of $50,000, plus costs and such other damages as the Court may deem just and proper.
The plaintiff is represented by Jeffrey R. Lessin of Jeffrey R. Lessin & Associates, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Hugh Daulerio and Robert Douglas Billet of Billet & Associates, plus Henry J. Noye of Bunker & Ray, also in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 5:21-cv-03996
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 210800116
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com