ALLENTOWN – A man tasked with cleaning a chocolate batching tank at a Mars, Inc. facility and who claimed he became trapped in the machinery for more than six hours, has rejected a response from the company that his allegations were not properly pled.
Luis Torres Crespo and Tsutsumi Cuebas Torres of Lancaster first filed suit in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas on Jan. 13 versus Mars Wrigley Confectionery US, LLC, of Elizabethtown.
“On or about June 9, 2022, defendant Mars did employ certain employees, workmen, servants, agents who were on duty at defendant’s facility at all times relevant herein. On or about June 9, 2022, plaintiff’s employer I.K. Stoltzfus Service Corporation was retained by the defendant Mars to clean certain micron tanks at the defendant’s facility, specifically the Dove chocolate batching 20 micron tank. On or about the aforesaid date, plaintiff Luis Torres Crespo was an employee of I.K. Stoltzfus Service Corporation, and was instructed by employees, agents, servants, or workmen of defendant Mars to enter the Dove chocolate batching 20 micron tank to clean same,” the suit said.
“On or about June 9, 2022, while cleaning the Dove chocolate batching 20 micron tank, the composite that was remaining in said tank, at the time that the cleaning was commenced, hardened, trapping the plaintiff in said composite, and in said tank itself. Despite the plaintiff’s cries for help to extricate him from the composite which had hardened, the agents, servants, workmen and/or employees of the defendant Mars refused to extricate the plaintiff from the hardened substance by simply cutting a hole in the micron tank itself, leaving plaintiff trapped in the hardened substance for over six hours, until finally the local authorities were notified and arrived on the scene, at which time the local authorities cut a hole in the micron tank and extricated the plaintiff from the hardened substance. By the time the plaintiff was extricated from the hardened substance, the plaintiff was in and out of consciousness. As a result of the incident described above, the plaintiff sustained serious permanent personal injuries.”
The suit added that the “solidifying of the substance located in the tank in question was not caused whatsoever due to any act or failure to act on the part of the plaintiff.”
“As a direct and proximate result of the defendant’s actions, plaintiff suffered grave and traumatic injuries, including injuries to his left knee, left kidney, entire left leg from below the knee, head, the full extent of which is not yet known, and including, but not limited to: Rhabdomyolysis, acute kidney injury, right ankle sprain, right knee sprain, left knee sprain, right leg laceration, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, sleep disturbance, disruptions in functioning including increased feelings of dysphoria, avoidance behaviors at work, increased emotional distress, mode lability and panic, flashbacks, social withdrawal, nightmares, severe aches, pains and mental anguish, injury to his nerves and nervous systems, whereby he has in the past, and will continue in the future to suffer severe pain,” the suit stated.
“As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid incident, plaintiff was obliged to undergo medical treatment and care and has incurred various expenses for the injuries he sustained. Plaintiff’s injuries cause constant pain, discomfort, and limitation of motion, all of which injuries are or may be permanent in nature. Plaintiff, as a result of said injuries, probably may, and will in the future, be obliged to expend large and various sums of money for medicine and medical attention in and about endeavoring to treat and cure himself of his injuries. As a further result of this accident, plaintiff has been, and will in the future, be obliged to undergo medical attention and care, expend various sums of money, and incur various expenses for the injuries he has sustained. Plaintiff may be obliged to continue to undergo such medical attention and care, expend such sums, and incur such expenses for an indefinite period of time into the future.”
On Feb. 27, the defendant removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Allentown, citing the diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount of damages at issue.
“According to the complaint in the instant case, plaintiffs are citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Mars Wrigley Confectionary US, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Mars, Incorporated. Mars, Inc. is incorporated in Delaware and has a principal place of business in Virginia. Therefore, diversity of citizenship exists as plaintiffs are citizens of Pennsylvania and defendant is a citizen of states other than Pennsylvania,” the removal notice stated.
“Here, the court should find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy is in excess of $75,000 as plaintiffs have refused to sign a stipulation certifying that the damages alleged are valued at less than $75,000. There is complete diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional requirement of $75,000, therefore, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332 and removal of this proceeding to this Court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1441.”
The defendant then followed up with a motion to dismiss the case on March 3.
“In the instant matter, plaintiffs have failed to set forth any factual allegations of actual conduct by moving defendant capable of supporting a punitive damages award. Specifically, while plaintiffs’ complaint includes a multitude of allegations in support of his claim that his damages were caused ‘solely by the negligence, recklessness and carelessness’ of moving defendant, these allegations all sound in negligence and are primarily based on a failure to act. Plaintiffs rely solely on these allegations throughout their complaint in an effort to support their claim for punitive damages. It is of utmost importance to note that none of the allegations set forth in plaintiffs’ complaint give rise to willful and wanton misconduct as is required by the well-established jurisprudence of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,” per the dismissal motion.
“Moreover, the allegations simply do not explain how moving defendant’s conduct was tantamount to an evil motive or reckless indifference to the right of others. It is evident that plaintiffs’ complaint falls woefully short of pleading evidence to meet the strict standard for punitive damages under Pennsylvania law. Accordingly, consistent with the significant body of case law regarding punitive damages, this Honorable Court should strike all allegations of recklessness as well as claims for punitive damages contained in plaintiffs’ complaint.”
The motion also contended that the plaintiffs had not put forth evidence to prove its false imprisonment claim.
“Plaintiffs’ complaint makes clear that [subject] plaintiff intentionally and voluntarily entered the tank on his own in order to clean the tank. There is no allegation that plaintiff was forced, coerced or physically placed into the tank by the moving defendant. Plaintiff’s complaint further asserts that plaintiff became stuck in the tank because the composite material in the tank hardened around him. There is no allegation that moving defendant purposefully took action to cause the composite material in the tank to harden while plaintiff was inside the tank,” the motion said.
“Therefore, consistent with the court in Crivellaro, there are no allegations which demonstrate any element of force, threatened force or actual physical restraint on the part of moving defendant whatsoever. Twombley has made clear that ‘naked assertion[s] devoid of further factual enhancement are insufficient.’ It is evident from the allegations contained in plaintiff’s complaint that the foundation of his false imprisonment cause of action is built upon nothing more than naked assertions. Plaintiff’s cause of action for false imprisonment must therefore be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).”
The defendant also argued that the plaintiffs had not shown a case for their intentional infliction of emotional distress count.
“Plaintiff’s complaint once again lacks factual substantiation for his claims and relies solely on the conclusory allegations contained in the prior counts. Notably, and of utmost importance, plaintiff’s complaint contains absolutely no allegations which show that moving defendant’s alleged conduct was of an extreme or outrageous nature,” the motion continued.
“There is no conceivable reading of plaintiff’s complaint which would permit a finding that moving defendant’s alleged conduct went beyond all possible bounds of decency, and can regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in civilized society. As discussed above, such a showing is essential to a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.”
UPDATE
A March 10 response to the dismissal motion saw the plaintiffs reject the defense’s conclusion that the claims were not properly pled.
“Plaintiffs’ complaint contains allegations that are properly pled, the complaint pleads the elements necessary for each complained of cause of action, the facts alleged in plaintiffs’ complaint state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face, and the same are not mere conclusory statements. Moreover, plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that the defendant’s employees intentionally refrained from removing plaintiff-husband, from the tank in question for six hours, all the while the plaintiff-husband was in and out of consciousness. These allegations are contained in plaintiffs’ complaint and do not sound in negligence but sound of intentional actions on the part of defendant’s employees,” the response stated, in part.
“Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that the defendant’s employees intentional refrained from removing plaintiff-husband, from the tank in question for six hours, all the while the plaintiff-husband was in and out of consciousness. If this alleged behavior does not ‘rise to willful and wanton misconduct’ counsel is lost as to what would rise to that level.”
The response added that due to the actions of someone other than the defendant who notified the local authorities about plaintiff-husband being trapped in the tank, those said actions were the only reason the plaintiff-husband was extricated.
For multiple counts of negligence, recklessness, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress and loss of consortium, the plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages in excess of $50,000.
The plaintiffs are represented by James M. Turner Jr. of Furia & Turner, in Media.
The defendant is represented by Christina Capobianco of Goldberg Segalla, in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 5:23-cv-00744
Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas case CI-23-00300
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com