PITTSBURGH – One company has been dismissed without prejudice from a couple’s negligence lawsuit, which argued that U.S. Steel and its co-defendants were liable for injuries the husband-plaintiff suffered, when he was sucked into a pressurized fan system and nearly killed.
Joshua Keller and Vanessa Keller of McDonald first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Dec. 5 versus U.S. Steel Corporation of Pittsburgh, The Edgar Thompson Steel Co. Ltd. of Braddock, BrandSafway Industries, LLC, BrandSafway LDAR, LLC, BrandSafway, LLC, BrandSafway Services, LLC and BrandSafway Solutions, LLC, all of Kennesaw, Ga.
“On Oct. 31, 2022, Joshua Keller was lawfully performing renovation work at the Edgar Thomson Steel Plant located in Braddock, Pennsylvania. At all times relevant hereto, Mr. Keller was lawfully on the premises of the Project as a business invitee, to whom the defendants owed the highest duty of care. On Oct. 31, 2022, Mr. Keller, while acting within the course and scope of his employment, was assisting with construction work atop the roof of the ‘flooded elbow.’ Specifically, Mr. Keller was repairing the roof of the flooded elbow. The roof on which Mr. Keller was standing was over 6 feet off the ground. The roof of the flooded elbow was damaged with an open hole that led directly to the pressurized fan system, a part of the gas cleaning system,” the suit alleged.
“The flooded elbow was lined with scaffolding and planking, which were designed, installed, inspected, and maintained by the US Steel defendants and/or the BrandSafway defendants. The U.S. Steel defendants failed to de-energize or otherwise make safe the fan system and gas cleaning system. The U.S. Steel defendants permitted Mr. Keller and other workers to perform their jobs near the open hole in the flooded elbow while the fan system remained energized. The U.S. Steel defendants and the BrandSafway defendants failed to make safe the flooded elbow and the hole in its roof, exposing workers like Mr. Keller to a fall risk and the risk of the fan’s pressure system. The U.S. Steel defendants and the BrandSafway defendants failed to provide Mr. Keller with a personal fall arrest system and/or failed to ensure workers were equipped with appropriate fall protection, including personal fall arrest systems.”
The suit added that while standing on the scaffolding to perform his work duties, suddenly and without any warning to Mr. Keller, the pressurized fan system was turned on by the defendants, leading the scaffolding and planking Mr. Keller was standing on to be sucked into the flood elbow and fan systems.
“Mr. Keller was sucked off the platform and into the fan system. Mr. Keller was forced to hold on for dear life while refractory and other materials pelted him for minutes on end – had he let go, he would have been ripped apart by the fan system. As a result of this accident, Mr. Keller suffered catastrophic, permanent, debilitating and life-altering injuries,” the suit stated.
“As a direct and proximate result of the carelessness, negligence, gross negligence, recklessness and other liability-producing conduct of the defendants, plaintiff was forced to suffer serious, disabling and permanent injuries, including but not limited to pelvic fractures, spinal fractures, rib fractures, a punctured lung, a heart contusion, a head injury, and other orthopedic, neurological and psychological injuries, the full extent of which have yet to be determined.”
The BrandSafway defendants filed preliminary objections in the case on Dec. 23, finding that more than one of the plaintiffs’ claims were not sufficient as legal pleadings.
“Here, plaintiffs’ complaint is insufficiently specific, and must be dismissed, because it omits a fact that is essential to their legal entitlement to recover; specifically, plaintiffs’ complaint pled that plaintiff Joshua Keller was ‘acting within the course and scope of his employment’, but failed to state the actual identity of plaintiff Joshua Keller’s employer,” according to the objections, in part.
“Their allegation that plaintiff Joshua Keller was within the course and scope of employment does not sufficiently enable the BrandSafway defendants to prepare their affirmative defenses to plaintiffs’ allegations; most importantly, they have no way of knowing whether they are entitled to the defense that plaintiffs’ claims directed to them are preempted by the exclusivity provision of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act.”
The BrandSafway defendants contend that without knowing the scope of the plaintiff’s employment and representation to his employer, their ability to fully defend the case is prejudiced.
The objections further argued that the plaintiffs did not plead their punitive damages claim properly in showing acts beyond simple negligence and did not fully outline their additional claims of liability-producing conducts on the defendants’ parts.
After a motion to send the case to the Commerce and Complex Litigation Center was filed on Jan. 24, U.S. Steel filed preliminary objections in the matter on Feb. 1.
“Plaintiffs’ complaint is insufficiently specific because it omits an essential fact to the case – the identity of Mr. Keller’s employer. Plaintiffs’ general averment that Mr. Keller was ‘acting within the course and scope of his employment,’ without actually identifying his employer, prohibits U.S. Steel from forming its defenses regarding the duty care it may have owed to Mr. Keller. Additionally, without knowing Mr. Keller’s employer, U.S. Steel cannot determine whether it is entitled to the defense that plaintiffs’ claims are pre-empted by the exclusivity provision of the Pennsylvania Worker’s Compensation Act,” the objections stated, in part.
“Plaintiffs classify U.S. Steel’s conduct as merely negligent and then use that same conduct to allege a claim for punitive damages, which is prohibited under Pennsylvania law. Even taking plaintiffs’ averments as true, they still do not constitute anything more than mere negligence. Therefore, U.S. Steel respectfully requests that this Honorable Court sustain its preliminary objection pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1028(a)(4) as to plaintiffs’ claims for punitive damages in the ad damnum clauses of Counts I and III of the complaint.”
On Feb. 21, Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas Judge Christine A. Ward granted the motion to send the case to the Commerce and Complex Litigation Center.
“Upon consideration of the plaintiffs’ motion to assign case to the Commerce and Complex Litigation Center, it is hereby ordered, adjudicated and decreed that the motion is granted and the above-captioned case is hereby designated complex. All further proceedings shall be presided over by the Honorable Judge Philip Ignelzi,” the judicial order stated.
A joint stipulation from counsel for all parties on March 23, dictated that the punitive damages claim would be removed from the case.
UPDATE
U.S. Steel filed a motion on April 11, explaining that The Edgar Thompson Steel Co. Ltd. would be removed as a defendant from the action, since it was an incorrectly-named party.
“In addition to U.S. Steel and the BrandSafway defendants, plaintiffs named The Edgar Thompson Steel Co. Ltd. as a defendant, which is an improperly-named party. Plaintiffs have stipulated in writing and agreed to the voluntary discontinuance of The Edgar Thompson Steel Co. Limited from this action, without prejudice. In addition to the dismissal of The Edgar Thompson Steel Co. Limited from this action without prejudice, plaintiffs have agreed to the corresponding amendment of plaintiffs’ complaint and the caption of the case as set forth in the proposed Order of Court,” per the motion.
“Counsel for U.S. Steel has previously requested on multiple occasions the consent of the BrandSafway defendants for this discontinuance and the corresponding amendment to the complaint and the caption, by way of stipulation. Last Monday, April 3, counsel for the BrandSafway defendants asked if counsel for U.S. Steel would hold off on filing this motion until the end of the week to follow up with their client. However, as of the time of filing of this motion, counsel for the BrandSafway defendants has not communicated further with counsel for U.S. Steel regarding their client’s position.”
For multiple counts of negligence and loss of consortium, the plaintiffs are seeking damages, jointly and/or severally, in excess of the jurisdictional threshold, exclusive of interest, costs and delay damages pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure Section 238.
The plaintiffs are represented Robert J. Mongeluzzi, Jeffrey P. Goodman and Aidan B. Carickhoff of Saltz Mongeluzzi & Bendesky, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by J. Lawton Johnston and Scott D. Clements of Dickie McCamey & Chilcote in Pittsburgh, plus Elizabeth A. Chalik of Kennedys LLP, also in Philadelphia.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-22-014863
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com