PITTSBURGH – An Allegheny County woman insists she suffered both eye and facial injuries as a 14-year-old at North Hills High School in 2019, when she was struck with a flying block of wood during a wood shop class.
Emma Brown first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Aug. 10 versus North Hills School District, of McMurray.
“On Nov. 12, 2019, Brown, then 14 years old, was attending her wood shop class in the North Hills High School wood shop classroom. The classroom contained a miter saw bolted to a table, and the table to which the miter saw was bolted was itself bolted to the floor,” the suit said.
“Brown was standing near a different table saw, several feet from the miter saw, observing and receiving instruction from her shop teacher, Mr. Derby. At this time, someone started the nearby miter saw. There was a loose piece of wood near the miter saw’s blade, which the blade caught and then launched across the room.”
The suit added there was no guard or barrier between the miter saw and the nearby area where Brown was standing.
“The piece of wood struck Brown in the right eye and nose area. Brown complained of pain and discomfort, and she was taken to the UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh Emergency Room,” the suit stated.
“As a result of being struck by the flying piece of wood, Brown suffered the following injuries: Scratched cornea in the right eye, blood clot on the optic nerve, detached retina, concussion, chronic migraines, worsened vision, floaters in her vision and a deviated nasal septum.”
UPDATE
On Sept. 28, North Hills School District filed an answer and new matter in the case, denying the plaintiff’s allegations as conclusions of law to which no official response was required and further claiming immunity from the suit in its entirety.
“The cause of action that is the subject matter of this suit is subject, to the provisions of the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, which provides immunity from suit for N.H.S.D., and the District raises this as an affirmative defense. In the alternative, the cause of action that is the subject matter of this suit in trespass his subject to the provisions of the Claims Against Local Agencies Act, which became effective on Dec. 5, 1980, wherein it was declared that a local agency shall not be liable for any damages on account of any injury to a person or property caused by any act or omission of the local agency, or an employee thereof or any other person except as otherwise provided in the Act. Defendant N.H.S.D., which is a political subdivision and/or local, agency under the terms of the aforementioned Act; claims all immunities, defenses and rights under the said Act to, the extent available,” the new matter stated, in part.
“Under the provisions of the aforementioned Act, if claimant (plaintiff) receives or is entitled to receive benefits under a policy of insurance other than a life insurance policy as a result of losses for which damages are recoverable under the appropriate section of the Act, the amount of such benefits shall be deducted from the amount of damages which would otherwise be coverable by any such claimant (plaintiff). The plaintiff’s cause of action against defendant N.H.S.D., which is a political subdivision: and/or local agency, is barred by the provisions of the aforementioned. Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act and/or Claims Against Local Agencies Act. It is averred that defendant N.H.S.D. was not given proper or timely notice, of the alleged incident or injuries by the plaintiff or on behalf of the plaintiff as required under law.”
The District further pled that the plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim against the District that can be granted under the Constitution, statutes and/or laws of the United States, or under the Constitution, statutes and/or laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
“Defendant N.H.S.D. pleads plaintiff’s claims against it are or may be barred, either, in whole or in part, as a result of plaintiff’s failure to comply with the applicable statute of limitations and provisions. To the extent justified by the facts developed through pleadings, discovery, and/or evidence introduced at the time of trial, defendant N.H.S.D. pleads, plaintiff was knowledgeable and familiar with the safety rules: and procedures to be expected when using the wood shop facilities at N.H.S.D. Defendant N.H.S.D. pleads the contributory negligence of the plaintiff Emma Brown, pursuant to the PA Comparative Act as a full or partial bar to plaintiff’s recovery. Defendant N.H.S.D. pleads the doctrine of assumption of a known risk, as a complete bar to any recovery by plaintiff in this action. Defendant N.H.S.D., denies that it in any way caused, through its agents, servants and/or employees or otherwise, any condition to exist on the grounds of the premises that was a legal or proximate cause of the accident alleged in the plaintiff’s complaint, and further denies that it was negligent in any of those ways set forth in the plaintiff’s complaint and raises this as an, affirmative defense,” the new matter continued.
“To the extent justified by the facts developed through pleadings, discovery and/or evidence introduced at the time of trial, defendant N.H.S.D. had no actual or constructive notice or knowledge of any condition that may have provided a danger to any invitee, licensee and/or other person under the circumstances then and there existing. Defendant N.H.S.D. avers that if plaintiff suffered any injuries/damages as alleged, such injuries/damages were caused solely and primarily by the carelessness, recklessness, and/or negligence of third-parties both known and unknown to the District, and over whom this defendant had no control. Defendant N.H.S.D. avers that it neither designed the complained of wood saw nor constructed it, as the design and construction of the alleged wood saw was conducted by others to which this defendant would not be liable. To the extent justified by the: facts developed through pleadings, discovery and/or evidence introduced at the time of trial, the District avers that plaintiff’s alleged injuries, damages and treatment are, unreasonable and, excessive in light of the facts of this case.”
The following day, on Sept. 29, plaintiff counsel replied to the new matter and denied it in its entirety.
For one count of negligence, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of the mandatory arbitration limits, exclusive of costs and interest.
The plaintiff is represented by Scott D. Glassmith of Gismondi & Associates, in Pittsburgh.
The defendant is represented by Joseph L. Luvara and Madison L. Miranda of Dickie McCamey & Chilcote, also in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-23-009684
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com