PITTSBURGH – A Pittsburgh couple insist that a local café’s tea was manufactured and marketed defectively, due to its excessive heat and an accompanying lack of warnings, leading to their two-year-old son being burned severely when he came into contact with it.
Benjamin Antin and Rachel Antin (as parents and natural guardians of A.A., a minor, and in their own right) first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on May 26 versus Commonplace Coffee Company, Inc. All parties are of Pittsburgh.
“On March 20, 2019, mother-plaintiff entered defendant’s shop with minor-plaintiff and ordered tea. Mother-plaintiff’s cup of tea suddenly, and without warning, tipped over and spilled onto minor-plaintiff, causing minor-plaintiff serious injuries,” the suit said.
“As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and carelessness of defendant, minor plaintiff sustained the following injuries, some or all of which may be permanent: a) Second degree burns to his right shoulder, chest, and abdomen; b) Permanent scarring of his right shoulder, chest, and abdomen; c) Bruises, contusions and other injuries in or about nerves, muscles, bones, tendons, ligaments, tissues and vessels of the body; and nervousness, emotional tension, anxiety and depression.”
The suit continued that the minor-plaintiff suffered a litany of serious injuries.
“As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and carelessness of defendant, minor plaintiff has suffered the following damages, some or all of which are or may be continuing: a) Great pain, suffering, inconvenience, embarrassment, mental anguish, and emotional and psychological trauma; b) He has been required to expend large sums of money for medical treatment and care, hospitalization, medical supplies, surgical appliances, rehabilitation and therapeutic treatment, medicines, and other attendant services; c) Lost earnings, and minor plaintiff's earning capacity has been reduced and may be permanently impaired; d) Inability to enjoy various pleasures of life that were previously enjoyed; and e) Loss and impairment of general health, strength and vitality,” the suit stated.
Commonplace Coffee Company, Inc. filed an answer and new matter in the case on June 30, where it denied that its tea was responsible for the boy’s burn-related injuries.
“To the extent justified by the evidence developed in discovery or the testimony at trial, Commonplace Coffee avers that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted. Commonplace Coffee asserts that no act or omission on its behalf was the cause of or contributed to any alleged injuries or damages. Commonplace Coffee asserts that it breached no duty owed to plaintiffs. Commonplace Coffee asserts that plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part by plaintiffs’ own contributory/comparative negligence. Commonplace Coffee avers misuse, abuse and/or improper use of the tea. Commonplace Coffee avers that the tea, including the way it was served to mother-plaintiff, always complied with state of the art and industry standards in effect. Commonplace Coffee avers that plaintiffs’ claims are barred because they cannot proffer any reliable evidence that the tea, including the way it was served to mother-plaintiff, was defective or unreasonably dangerous,” the new matter stated.
“To the extent justified by the evidence developed in discovery or the testimony at trial, Commonplace Coffee avers that plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, because minor plaintiff’s injuries were the result of conduct of plaintiffs, independent third-parties, and/or events that were extraordinary under the circumstances, not foreseeable in the normal course of events and/or superseding, intervening and independent causes of the alleged injuries. Commonplace Coffee asserts plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part by the sophisticated user doctrine. Commonplace Coffee raises all affirmative defenses set forth in Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1030(a), as if set forth herein. Commonplace Coffee asserts that plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part by plaintiffs’ own failure to mitigate damages. Commonplace Coffee avers it is entitled to a set-off reduction of plaintiffs’ claim for reimbursement of medical expenses in an amount reflecting payment of any med pay benefits paid by this defendant, collateral source(s) or any other sources(s). Commonplace Coffee avers that plaintiffs may not recover any medical expense reimbursements in excess of amounts accepted as full payment in satisfaction by medical providers pursuant to Moorhead v. Crozer-Chester Medical Center. Commonplace Coffee preserves any defenses pursuant to Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc. Commonplace Coffee hereby gives notice that it intends to rely upon such other defenses as may become available or apparent and therefore reserves its right to amend this answer and new matter to assert such defenses.”
UPDATE
On July 18, plaintiff counsel replied to the defendant’s new matter, denying it in its entirety.
“Paragraphs 34-48 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent that any response is deemed necessary, the averments of this paragraph are denied generally pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e),” the reply stated.
For counts of negligence, strict products liability and breach of warranty, the plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages in excess of the jurisdictional limits of compulsory arbitration, together with court costs, interest and such other and further relief as this Honorable Court may deem just and equitable.
The plaintiffs are represented by Chad P. Shannon of Friday & Cox, in Pittsburgh.
The defendant is represented by Susan A. Kostkas and Quinn A. McCall of Walsh Barnes, in Wexford.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-23-006669
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com