PITTSBURGH – A western Pennsylvania couple who sued a pair of Pittsburgh homeowners and their nanny for negligence after their four-year-old daughter was allegedly molested in the defendants’ home have settled their claims.
Andrew Steinmetz and Aimee Morewood (representing their daughter A.S., a minor) of Harrison City first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on May 26, 2020, versus Nancy Essay, Charles Tedrick and Mary Tedrick (representing their son J.T., a minor), all of Pittsburgh.
According to the lawsuit, Essay was hired as an in-home nanny by the Tedricks to supervise their minor son, J.T. With the Tedricks’ permission, Essay also began to watch and care for other neighborhood children inside the Tedricks’ home. One of them was the minor plaintiff, A.S., who was left at the home by the adult plaintiffs.
“On or about July 25, 2018, A.S. was at the Tedrick residence, being watched by Essay. At some point, Essay left A.S., a four year-old girl, in the basement of the Tedrick residence with J.T., a 14 year-old boy. While in the basement, without supervision, J.T. inappropriately touched A.S. and then asked A.S. to inappropriately touch him. A.S. told her parents about the incident. The following morning, A.S. was taken to UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh,” the suit stated.
J.T. was charged with various offenses and in January 2019, entered into a consent decree with an adjudication of guilt to charges of indecent assault and indecent exposure, the suit said.
The plaintiffs believed the defendants’ collective negligence allowed their daughter to be assaulted by the minor defendant.
Counsel for the Tedricks filed preliminary objections to the suit on Aug. 17, 2020, charging that the negligent supervision count leveled against them was deficient.
“A negligent supervision claim against a parent for the alleged actions of their child is maintainable only where defendants knew or had reason to know that the child had a propensity for engaging in the dangerous conduct which led to the child’s injury,” per the objections.
“On the day of the alleged incident, plaintiffs claim they allowed the in-house nanny of the Tedricks to watch their daughter, A.S. In the five paragraph-long negligent supervision count against the Tedricks, there are no factual averments that they had the ability to control the child on the day of the incident, knew of its necessity and/or had the opportunity to exercise control.”
The Tedricks’ attorney said as the complaint also didn’t include any facts indicating his clients knew of their minor child’s propensity for engaging in the alleged dangerous conduct and/or actions which caused the alleged harm of A.S.
“Count III alleges general, boilerplate allegations against the Tedricks to support the negligent supervision claim. As a matter of law, plaintiffs’ complaint fails to plead the required factual averments to support a prima facie case of negligent supervision as to the Tedricks,” according to the objections.
In a Jan. 21, 2021 answer and new matter, the Tedricks assert the plaintiffs’ complaint was not properly pled.
“Plaintiffs have failed to state a valid cause of action upon which relief may be granted. To the extent that discovery reveals, plaintiffs’ claims are barred or limited by the doctrines of contributory or comparative negligence. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred to the extent that discovery reveals that the incident and plaintiffs’ alleged injuries and damages were caused solely by and/or exclusively by circumstances over which these defendants did not have any control and/or responsibility and/or by supervening, intervening and/or independent causes over which these defendants did not have control and/or responsibility and not in any manner whatsoever by the actions and/or inactions of these defendants,” the answer stated.
“Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries and damages were the sole, proximate or substantial results of the conduct of a person or an entity other than these defendants. Defendant has been advised by counsel and therefore avers that some or all of plaintiff’s expenses for medical treatment and the like are covered by third-party and/or other providers. If any of these expenses and/or wages is permitted to be introduced into evidence as items of damage, and if a verdict is entered in plaintiffs’ favor, these defendants claim a right of set-off against the verdict in an amount equal to those expenses. Plaintiffs were comparatively negligent in their supervision of their daughter.”
The Tedrick defendants further levied a cross-claim toward co-defendants Essay and J.T.
The plaintiffs replied to the answer and new matter on Dec. 22, denying it as conclusions of law to which no official response was required, and demanding strict proof of those same assertions at trial.
UPDATE
On June 17, it was reported that a settlement had been reached in the case. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed.
“Kindly mark the above-captioned matter as settled and discontinued with prejudice,” the praecipe to settle and discontinue read.
For multiple counts of negligence, negligence per se, negligent supervision and intentional sexual assault, the plaintiff is seeking damages in an amount in excess of $50,000, plus costs, interest and a trial by jury.
The plaintiffs are represented by John B. Cromer of Burke Cromer Cremonese, in Pittsburgh.
The defendants are represented by Robert A. Loch and Andrew D. Shannon of Robb Leonard Mulvihill, plus Dayne F. Dice of Bruce R. Dice & Associates, also all in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-20-006117
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com