PITTSBURGH – Counsel for a Western Pennsylvania woman who suffered third-degree burns over 70% of her body in a motor vehicle crash over two years ago, has refuted denials of liability from two of the defendants named in the subsequent litigation.
Payton Renee Balogh of Homer City first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Sept. 20 versus Mazda Motor Corporation of Hiroshima, Japan, Mazda Motor of America, Inc. in Irvine, Calif., Starter Cars in Altoona and Sutliff Auto Group of Harrisburg.
“On Oct. 20, 2020, at approximately 9:37 p.m., the plaintiff was the seat-belted driver of a 2010 Mazda 3. She was driving westerly on Airport Road near Geesey Road in White Township, when she was caused to lose steering control and left the roadway. The Mazda traversed a grassy area and struck a partly buried concrete stanchion causing damage to the Mazda, including some undercarriage components, and then the vehicle rolled over onto its passenger side. A fire erupted, spreading smoke and fire into the occupant section, where the plaintiff was trapped. Before anyone could come to her rescue, Balogh was catastrophically burned over most of her body,” the suit said.
“The unsafe, carelessly-designed and defective design of the Mazda and its failure to be crashworthy, caused damage to vehicle structural components and components containing flammable liquids, which precipitated the leakage of flammable fluids and the trapping of the plaintiff. As a result, smoke and fire entered the occupant section of the vehicle, causing Balogh to suffer catastrophic burn injuries and secondary complications. The unsafe, carelessly-designed and defective design of the Mazda and its failure to be crashworthy, caused the plaintiff to become trapped and she was unable to escape before the smoke and fire encapsulated her and she suffered catastrophic thermal burns (third-degree) to more than 70% of her body.”
According to the suit, the defendants’ collective liability for the design and marketing of the vehicle directly precipitated Balogh’s severe burn injuries.
“As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct of the defendants and the defective design of the Mazda, the plaintiff suffered second-degree and third-degree burns to most aspects of her body, including her head, face, chest, bilateral upper extremities, bilateral upper thighs and the entirety of her back and buttocks, which has resulted in permanent disfigurement, functional injuries, disability and continuing complications,” the suit stated.
“Additionally, Balogh suffered acute respiratory failure, severe sepsis with septic shock, tachycardia, amputation of all the fingers on her right hand and other physical, emotional and functional complications to be proven at the time of trial. Plaintiff’s injuries and the resulting medical complications have in the past and will in the future require ongoing hospitalizations and rehabilitation services.”
On Nov. 18, counsel for both parties agreed to dismiss the claims for punitive damages without prejudice.
“Plaintiff Payton Renee Balogh agrees to dismiss without prejudice her claims for punitive damages against defendants set forth in plaintiff’s complaint, on the condition that after the completion of discovery, plaintiff may file a motion to amend her complaint to reassert claims of punitive damages and defendants may thereafter file preliminary objections with respect to the amended complaint. The parties agree that the Court should enter the attached order,” the stipulation stated.
Counsel for Starter Cars filed an answer, new matter and cross-claim in the case on Jan. 6. While the company admitted that it sold uses cars and that it sold a Mazda that the plaintiff was a co-signer on, it denied the remaining allegations. Starter Cars further explained that a number of the allegations were directed to defendants other than itself, and thus would not respond to them.
“Plaintiff has failed to properly mitigate her damages. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that they were intervening and superseding causes for which this defendant is not responsible. While denying all liability, and for the purposes of this cross-claim only, defendant Starter Cars hereby incorporates by reference as though fully set forth at length, the allegations contained in plaintiff’s complaint directed against co-defendants Mazda Motor of America, Inc. (doing business as “Mazda North America Operations”) and Sutliff Auto Group,” the new matter and cross-claim stated.
“In the event that said co-defendants are determined to be liable to the plaintiff then defendant Starter Cars asserts its right of contribution and/or indemnity and requests that any verdict be appropriate and molded to reflect this claim for contribution and/or indemnity.”
Sutliff Auto Group followed up with its own answer, new matter and cross-claim on Jan. 11.
It denied that it sold the subject vehicle to the plaintiff and/or her mother, but rather, Sutliff argued it received the vehicle as a trade-in at its now-closed Buick-GMC-Cadillac dealership, and then sold the vehicle to Starter Cars.
“This answering defendant asserts the defenses of assumption of the risk and all other defenses preserved by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1030. This answering defendant asserts that there may have been a superseding or intervening cause that caused or contributed to the incident at issue. Plaintiff may have failed to mitigate her damages,” their answer read.
“While denying any liability to plaintiff as stated herein, this defendant for purposes of this cross-claim only, hereby incorporates by reference plaintiff’s complaint against co-defendants Starter Cars and Mazda Motor of America, Inc. (doing business as “Mazda North America Operations”). In the event that the co-defendants are found to be liable to the plaintiff, then defendant Sutliff Saturn, Inc. (doing business as “Sutliff Auto Group”) demands contribution and/or indemnity from the co-defendants and the verdict must be molded to conform to the demand for contribution and/or indemnity,” the accompanying cross-claim added.
UPDATE
On Jan. 24, plaintiff counsel filed replies to both defendants’ answers and new matter.
“Plaintiff begins by noting that because most of the assertions raised by defendants’ new matter are conclusions of fact and/or law, responsive pleadings therefore are not required to those allegations. Additionally, other paragraphs in defendants’ new matter include affirmative defenses that are at issue even if not plead, again obviating the need for a responsive pleading. Finally, to the extent that plaintiff denies the contentions raised in defendant’s new matter and defendant’s cross-claim, plaintiff does so based on the details set forth more fully in her complaint,” the replies stated, in part.
“These paragraphs state conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that responses are deemed necessary, these averments are denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.”
For counts of strict products liability, negligence, gross negligence, wanton disregard and punitive damages, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of $50,000, plus interest, costs of suit and other such items of damages as permitted by law.
The plaintiff is represented by Larry Coben and Jo Ann Nieim of Anapol Weiss, in Scottsdale, Ariz.
The defendants are represented by Gerard Cedrone and Jo E. Peifer of Lavin Cedrone Graver Boyd & DiSipio in Philadelphia, Philip J. Sbrolla and Christopher D. Gee of Post & Schell in Pittsburgh, plus Michael E. Lang of Margolis Edelstein, in Beaver.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-22-011811
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com