PITTSBURGH – Both an Ohio manufacturer and Lowe’s have denied liability for injuries a Pittsburgh man says he suffered when the inoperable brake pedal of a tractor he purchased, caused him to crash the tractor and become seriously injured.
John D. Cain of Pittsburgh initially filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on July 19 versus Troy-Bilt, LLC of Upper Arlington, Ohio and Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC, of Mooresville, N.C.
(The filing of the complaint was preceded on June 7, 2019 by the filing of Writ of Summons, followed by unsuccessful mediation, leading the plaintiff’s claims to remain unresolved. This lack of resolution eventually led to the complaint’s filing.)
“In May 2017, plaintiff purchased the at-issue Bronco Lawn Tractor, Model No. 13AL78BS023, from a Lowe’s Home Improvement store. On June 17, 2017, plaintiff was using the at-issue tractor, as advertised and marketed by defendant, i.e. mowing lawns and driving the tractor on Centre Avenue, when he released his foot off the gas pedal, but the tractor failed to reduce its speed,” the suit said.
“Plaintiff then attempted to press on the brakes and when they failed to work properly, was unable to slow down the at-issue tractor, at which point the tractor continued to go downhill at an unsafe speed and unpredictable nature while plaintiff was still aboard. Due to the excessive speed and inability for the tractor to reduce such speed or come to a stop, plaintiff crashed the tractor and was thrown from the seat.”
The suit added that as a result of the defendant’s negligence, defective product, unreasonably dangerous product, inadequate warnings and breach of warranty, the plaintiff sustained the following injuries, some of which are permanent: Dislocation of his left shoulder, skin lacerations and burns, shoulder hairline fracture, bruises, contusions, abrasions and other injuries in or about nerves, muscles, bones, tendons, ligaments, tissues and vessels of the body, and nervousness, emotional tension, anxiety and depression.
“As a direct and proximate result of the defendant’s negligence, defective product, unreasonably dangerous product, inadequate warnings and breach of warranties, plaintiff sustained the following damages, some or all of which are or may be continuing: Great and continuing pain and suffering, inconvenience, embarrassment, mental anguish and emotional and psychological trauma; Large medical expenses for treatment and care, medical supplies, rehabilitation and therapeutic treatment, medicines, attendant services and other treatments; Inability to enjoy various pleasures of life that he previously enjoyed; Lost earnings and plaintiff’s earning capacity has been diminished; Permanent disability and loss of impairment of general health, strength and vitality,” the suit stated.
The defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Aug. 18, citing the amount in damages at issue and diversity of citizenship between the parties.
UPDATE
Both defendants filed separate but substantially-similar answers to the complaint on Aug. 26, each of which denied the plaintiff’s assertions of liability and provided additional defenses.
“The at-issue tractor was neither defective nor unreasonably dangerous when it left the defendants’ possession. The complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. To the extent the alleged damages were the proximate result of misuse, abuse, damage or improper maintenance of the at-issue tractor, the defendants asserts the defense of comparative fault. To the extent plaintiff did not exercise ordinary care, caution and prudence, any resulting damages were caused by the failure to operate the at-issue tractor properly and thus plaintiff’s comparative fault. To the extent the at-issue tractor was altered after it left the defendants’ possession or control, the defendants are not liable,” the defenses stated, in part.
“The alleged damages were caused by persons other than the defendants. Any alleged fault attributable to the defendants, which is denied, was superseded by an independent intervening cause. The defendants plead all state-of-the-art defenses and further asserts that the utility of the machine is greater than the risk associated with its operation. Any alleged negligence of the defendants, said negligence being denied, was secondary and passive, and the negligence of other persons was the active producing cause of the alleged damages, if any. The defendants made no implied warranties to plaintiff, or in the alternative, any implied warranties have been excluded, disclaimed or limited. Plaintiff did not rely upon the defendants’ skill or judgment in selecting the at-issue tractor.”
The defendants added that the plaintiff’s improper use of the tractor included, but is not limited to, free-wheeling the tractor down a steep hill and at high speeds, that the claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of assumption of the risk and by the statute of limitations.
For multiple counts of negligence, strict products liability, breach of implied warranty, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of the jurisdictional limits of compulsory arbitration, together with court costs, interest and all other relief permitted by the Court.
The plaintiff is represented by Ian Watt and Peter D. Friday of Friday & Cox, in Pittsburgh.
The defendants are represented by Douglas M. Grimsley, Frederick W. Bode III, Michael A. Muha and Richard T. Coyne of Dickie McCamey & Chilcote, in Pittsburgh and Cleveland, Ohio.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:22-cv-01196
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-19-008355
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com