PITTSBURGH – An Ohio man who alleged that negligence on the part of a Western Pennsylvania man loading liquid oxygen into a storage tank caused him to be engulfed in flames when he discarded a lit cigarette in the vicinity, has settled his claims.
John Knight and Marcy Knight of Steubenville, Ohio first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Oct. 18 versus Bradley Kuriger of Lyndora and Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., of Allentown.
“The events hereinafter complained of occurred on or about Sept. 13, 2022 at approximately 5:41 a.m. at the Universal Stainless facility located at 600 Mayer Street, Bridgeville, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania 15017. At all times material hereto, plaintiff John Knight was walking towards the melt shop at the Universal Stainless facility. At the same time, defendant Kuriger was offloading liquid oxygen into a storage tank at Universal Stainless near the melt shop,” the suit said.
“Upon information and belief, defendant Kuriger left the vent valve open on the storage tank while attempting to fill the storage tank with liquid oxygen allowing approximately 34,040 pounds of liquid oxygen to convert to a gas and escape to the surrounding area, creating an oxygen-enriched atmosphere. At the same time, plaintiff John Knight threw a cigarette butt onto the ground, which came into contact with the gaseous oxygen, causing leaves and other materials to ignite, and causing plaintiff John Knight’s legs, torso and arms to become engulfed in flames.”
The suit continued that as a result of Kuriger failing to safely offload the oxygen in question, plaintiff John Knight was caused to suffer catastrophic bodily injuries.
“As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and carelessness of defendant Kuriger, plaintiff John Knight sustained the following injuries: Third-degree burns to 65 percent of his body, requiring multiple skin grafts with cadaver skin and ultimately requiring him to undergo bilateral, below-the-knee amputations; Blood infection, decreased range of motion, decreased strength, decreased mobility, increased need for assistance from others, impairment of ability to perform activities of daily living, increased dependence upon others, permanent scarring and disfigurement and other serious and severe injuries as the medical records may reveal or have yet to be diagnosed,” the suit stated.
The defendants filed an answer and new matter on Feb. 6, denying the plaintiffs’ allegations and countering that the subject plaintiff was responsible for his own injuries.
“Plaintiffs may be responsible, in whole or in part, for the injuries alleged because discovery may reveal that plaintiffs voluntarily and knowingly assumed the open and obvious risk of the activities, and therefore, all claims resulting therefrom are barred. To the extent supported by evidence, defendants raise the failure to mitigate damages as a complete and/or partial bar to plaintiffs’ claims. Defendants raise the acts and omissions of third parties over whom defendants had neither the right nor the duty to control, as a complete and/or partial bar to plaintiffs’ claims. To the extent applicable, defendants aver the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations as a complete and/or partial bar to plaintiffs’ claims,” the new matter said.
“Plaintiffs’ injuries, if any, occurred as a result of intervening/superseding causes, and any act or omission on the part of defendants were not the proximate and/or substantial contributing or producing cause of such alleged injuries and/or damages. Plaintiffs’ injuries, if any, were caused by conduct or conditions over which defendants had no control. To the extent that discovery reveals that this action is properly to be held before an arbitration tribunal or contract or otherwise, this action should be transferred and/or dismissed. Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiffs’ claims may be barred by the doctrines of assumption of the risk and contributory negligence or reduced by comparative negligence.”
The defendants added that the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act may serve to bar the plaintiffs’ claims.
On Feb. 14, counsel for all parties mutually agreed to a stipulation which would serve to remove Paragraphs 33 and 35 from the defendants’ recently-filed answer and new matter.
These paragraphs had originally served to preserve any and all defenses under Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., including those based on state-of-the-art evidence, scientific unknowability, governmental standards, industry standards, the defendants’ conduct and foreseeability considerations, along with the right to plead additional affirmative defenses based upon information revealed in ongoing proceedings.
On Feb. 21, the plaintiffs replied to the defendants’ new matter.
“The allegations contained within Paragraphs 23-32 and 34 of defendants’ new matter constitute conclusions of law to which no responses are required. To the extent responses are deemed necessary, the allegations contained within Paragraphs 23-32 and 34 of defendants’ new matter are denied in accordance with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Paragraphs 33 and 35 of defendants’ new matter have been stricken pursuant to a stipulation. Therefore, no responses are required,” per the reply.
UPDATE
Plaintiff counsel filed a praecipe to settle and discontinue the case on Aug. 18. Terms of the settlement were not revealed.
“Kindly mark the within matter as settled and discontinued,” the praecipe read.
The plaintiffs were represented by Brad D. Trust and Amber L. Manson-Webb of Edgar Snyder & Associates, in Pittsburgh.
The defendants were represented by Brant T. Miller and Summerly Kulik of Gordon & Rees, also in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-22-012543
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com