ALLENTOWN – The Kellogg Company has denied liability for injuries allegedly suffered by a Lancaster woman, when pallets loaded with goods fell out of a tractor-trailer and struck her body.
Aixa Marie Santiago-Torres of Lancaster initially filed suit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on June 30 versus The Kellogg Company (doing business as “Kellogg’s) of Battle Creek, Mich. and John Doe.
“On Aug. 18, 2020, plaintiff Aixa Marie Santiago-Torres was an employee of Ryder Systems, Inc., working at 2001 Yellow Goose Road, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. On the aforesaid date and time, plaintiff was about to begin unloading a tractor-trailer when, suddenly and without warning, pallets of product began falling out of the trailer when plaintiff opened the door, striking plaintiff’s left arm and her body,” the suit said.
“As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing incident and defendants’ negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness, plaintiff Santiago-Torres sustained painful and severe injuries which include, but are not limited to, left shoulder, arm and elbow sprain/strain, left shoulder rotator cuff syndrome, left shoulder and elbow contusion and a left shoulder superior labrum anterior and posterior (SLAP) tear.”
The suit added that the defendants caused the dangerous and/or hazardous condition to exist; failed to prevent the dangerous and/or hazardous condition from existing; failed to properly and/or adequately manage, train and/or supervise its agents, servants, workmen and/or employees; failed to institute and/or enforce adequate procedures and policies to prevent the dangerous and defective condition from existing and failed to ensure that all employees were aware of appropriate safety precautions, among other negligence-related violations.
“As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing incident and defendants’ negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness, plaintiff Santiago-Torres has suffered great physical pain and mental suffering, inconvenience in carrying out her daily activities, a loss of life’s pleasures and enjoyment, scarring and disfigurement, a loss of earnings and earning capacity and she may suffer pain and inconvenience into the future,” the suit stated.
“As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing incident and defendants’ negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness, plaintiff Santiago-Torres has been compelled to undergo otherwise unnecessary medical treatment and to incur miscellaneous medical expenses in an effort to restore herself to health and she may be forced to incur additional medical expenses in the future.”
The defendants removed the suit to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Allentown on July 22, on the basis of diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount of damages in question.
UPDATE
Kellogg answered the complaint on Aug. 8, providing both affirmative defenses and cross-claim against its co-defendant, Doe.
“Defendant restates and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs of this answer as if fully set forth herein. Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff’s complaint is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiff’s claims are barred and/or limited by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act or similar laws of other jurisdictions. Plaintiff’s claims are barred and/or limited by the assumption of the risk. Plaintiff’s alleged injuries or damages, said injuries and damages being specifically denied, were caused by the acts or omissions of the plaintiff and/or those of third parties over whom answering defendants had no control. Answering defendant pleads any and all releases entered into by plaintiffs, or to be entered into by plaintiff, as a reduction, in whole or in part, of any damages plaintiff is entitled to recover from answering defendant, it being specifically denied that answering defendant is in any way liable to the plaintiff in any respect,” according to said defenses.
“Answering defendant reserves the right upon completion of investigation and discovery, which is ongoing, to file such additional new matter affirmative defenses, counterclaims and/or third party complaints as may be appropriate. Defendant complied with all duties imposed upon it by law or otherwise. Defendant asserts the right of set-off resulting from any amounts recovered by plaintiff, or any other party, for the damages complained of in plaintiff’s complaint, said damages being denied. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrines of laches, waiver and estoppel. To the extent that any of the conditions alleged in the complaint existed, said conditions being denied as noted in answering defendant’s responses to the complaint, then answering defendant had no actual or constructive notice of the alleged conditions the time and place referenced by plaintiff. Answering defendant objects to the imposition of punitive damages on constitutional and such other grounds as may exist. Defendant complied with all local, state, federal regulations, requirements and laws at all material times. Defendant complied with all applicable guidelines, specifications and instructions.”
Additionally, the defense asserted that if the plaintiff sustained injuries as alleged in the complaint, they were caused, “solely or in part due to the negligence of the defendant, John Doe, and the time and place alleged.”
For two counts of negligence, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of $50,000, plus interest, costs and any other relief which this Honorable Court may deem just and fair.
The plaintiff is represented by Jay L. Solnick of Solnick Lawyers, in Glenside.
The defendants are represented by Brian Boyle of Mintzer Sarowitz Zeris Ledva & Meyers, in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 5:22-cv-02875
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 220602767
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com