PITTSBURGH – A Western Pennsylvania couple who sued Amazon and the manufacturer of a ladder they claimed was defective, after the wife-plaintiff fell from the ladder while conducting an insurance estimate at a home in Erie, have tentatively settled their claims after mediation.
Amber Green and Eric Green of Harrison City first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Jan. 3, 2022 versus Amazon.com, Inc. (and a number of related Amazon defendants) of Seattle, Wash., Handvoll of Garden Grove, Calif., and John Doe No. 1.
According to the suit, plaintiff Amber Green purchased a 17.5 foot Handvoll Telescoping Ladder from defendant Amazon’s website, which was delivered to her home.
“On March 5, 2020, Mrs. Green was conducting such an insurance estimate at a home located at 342 Glenridge Road, Erie, Pennsylvania, 16509. The insurance estimate required Mrs. Green to get onto the roof of the home, Mrs. Green used the ladder to access the roof. As she was attempting to come down from the roof via the ladder, it suddenly and unexpectedly collapsed, causing Mrs. Green to fall approximately 10 feet to the ground. Mrs. Green landed her back on top of the ladder,” the suit said.
“As a direct and proximate result of the above-described incident, Mrs. Green sustained the following injuries: Left radial head fracture; fracture of T-11 and T-12 vertebrae, severe left elbow pain, severe back pain, left wrist and hand pain, bruises and contusions, numbness and tingling in her bilateral extremities, decreased range of motion in her left elbow, scarring and disfigurement, nervousness, confusion, emotional tension, anxiety and severe, persistent and ongoing chronic pain.”
The suit claimed that Amazon knew or should have known of the ladder’s defective condition, and yet did not remove it from retail sale.
Counsel for Amazon removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on March 25, 2022, due to complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount in damages demanded in the suit.
Amazon answered the complaint on April 1, 2022, putting forth a number of affirmative defenses which denied liability for the plaintiffs’ injuries.
“Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to set forth a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiffs’ claims may be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiffs’ damages, if any, were proximately caused by the acts and omissions of others over whom Amazon had no control or right of control. Said acts or omissions were the superseding and/or sole direct and proximate cause of plaintiffs’ damages, if any. The product described in plaintiffs’ complaint may have been improperly maintained and such improper maintenance, as may be demonstrated through subsequent discovery, may be demonstrated to have been the cause of the accident described in the complaint,” the answer’s defenses stated, in part.
“Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in the event that the product underwent a substantial change and/or alteration by persons or parties beyond Amazon’s control. Plaintiffs and/or third persons or entities over whom Amazon had no control or right of control may have altered, modified, and/or misused the product described in plaintiffs’ complaint and/or engaged in highly reckless conduct thereby constituting the sole or superseding cause of the alleged damages, all such damages being otherwise denied. No act, or omission, or other liability producing conduct on the part of Amazon is a factual and/or legal cause of plaintiffs’ alleged injuries and/or damages, all such injuries and/or damages being otherwise denied. The alleged injuries and damages described in the complaint, all such injuries and/or damages being otherwise denied, were not the result of any act or omission on the part of Amazon nor the result of any breach of duty, if any, owed by Amazon.”
Counsel for both sides filed a joint stipulation on June 2 to dismiss parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), and to amend the caption to name the proper parties involved.
The parties dismissed the following named parties from the case without prejudice: Amazon Enterprises, Inc., Amazon Home, Inc., Amazon, LLC, Amazon Retail, LLC, Amazon Web Services, Inc., Amazon.com Sales, Inc. and Amazon.com Services, Inc.
Subsequently, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan approved the stipulation the following day, on June 3, 2022.
“Upon considering the parties’ stipulation to dismiss Amazon Enterprises, Inc., Amazon Home, Inc., Amazon, LLC, Amazon Retail, LLC, Amazon Web Services, Inc., Amazon.com Sales, Inc. and Amazon.com Services, Inc., it is ordered that the parties’ stipulation to dismiss is approved,” Ranjan said.
“Defendants Amazon Enterprises, Inc., Amazon Home, Inc., Amazon, LLC, Amazon Retail, LLC, Amazon Web Services, Inc., Amazon.com Sales, Inc. and Amazon.com Services, Inc. are dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), and the parties shall use, and Clerk of Court shall amend, the caption as above.”
On Jan. 27, Ranjan ordered that the plaintiffs were to file a status report by no later than Feb. 3, indicating whether they have formally served Handvoll and whether they know if Handvoll has retained counsel or intends to defend itself in this case.
In compliance with Ranjan’s order, such a report was filed by the plaintiffs on Feb. 3.
“Plaintiffs have not served defendant Handvoll to date. Plaintiffs are not aware if Handvoll has notice of this lawsuit or has retained counsel. Plaintiffs have made a diligent effort to locate and serve Handvoll without success. Before filing the complaint, plaintiffs attempted to contact Handvoll to notify the company of the accident and to negotiate a pre-litigation settlement. The pre-litigation letter was mailed to 10352 Trask Avenue, #C, Garden Grove, California 92843. That letter was returned undeliverable. Undersigned counsel searched for Handvoll on the Pennsylvania Department of State business search database. The search returned no results,” per the report.
“After filing their lawsuit, plaintiffs attempted to use discovery to obtain an address at which Handvoll could be served. Defendant Amazon provided the following address for Handvoll in response to plaintiffs’ discovery request seeking basic contact information about Handvoll: No. 2013, Building 3, No. 300-11, No. 10 Street, Baiyang Community Hangzhou, Zhejiang, CN 310018. Defendant Amazon did not provide a domestic address, nor have plaintiffs been able to locate a domestic address for Handvoll on their own.”
UPDATE
Subsequent to the case being sent to mediation in March and a related session which was convened on June 7, the case was administratively closed, pending a forthcoming settlement. Terms of that tentative settlement were not disclosed.
“It is hereby ordered that the Clerk mark the above-captioned case closed; that nothing contained in this order shall be considered a dismissal or disposition of this action, and that should further proceedings therein become necessary or desirable, either party may initiate the same in the same manner as if this order had not been entered. It is further ordered that the Court expressly retains jurisdiction in this matter to consider any issue arising during the period when settlement is being finalized, including but not limited to enforcing settlement,” Ranjan ordered.
The plaintiffs were represented by Athena M. Dufour-Mason and Paul R. Robinson of Meyer Darragh Buckler Bebenek & Eck, in Pittsburgh.
The defendants were represented by Erin W. Grewe of Campbell Conroy & O’Neil, in Berwyn.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:22-cv-00496
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-22-002436
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com