PITTSBURGH – A Pittsburgh couple continues to allege that Shaler Township committed negligence and charged it with failing to protect their then-15-month-old child from burning their feet on a hot metal access door.
P.M. (a minor, by and through his parents and natural guardians, Paul R. McGrath and Lindsey Ruane) and Paul R. McGrath and Lindsey Ruane, individually, of Pittsburgh first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on June 12 versus Shaler Township, of Glenshaw.
“The defendant, at all relevant times, owned, maintained, and supervised the Crawford Swimming Pool located at 1 Meyer Road, Glenshaw, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania 15116. This accident occurred on June 13, 2021 near the children’s splash park at the Crawford Swimming Pool located at 1 Meyer Road, Glenshaw, Pennsylvania. The claims in this count are brought pursuant to the exceptions to governmental immunity established by 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 8542(b)(3),” the suit said.
“At the time of this accident, there existed a dangerous condition involving an underground access point for maintenance on the swimming pool. The access point to the underground maintenance area was covered with a thick metal door. At and for a considerable period of time prior to this accident, the defendant had under their ownership, either specifically or by implication, care, direction, supervision, control and maintenance, on its property at the Crawford Swimming Pool, an underground access point which was covered by a metal door, for maintenance on the swimming pool. Prior to and at the time of this accident, the defendant had employees, agents, servants, and workmen working in furtherance of the business interests of the defendant.”
The suit added that the access panel covered by the metal door was located in a mulched area adjacent to the children’s splash park and due to the proximity of the metal access door to the children’s splash park, the defendant “knew or should have known that children were likely to walk across this area.”
“At the time of the accident, the minor plaintiff was 15 months old, and was playing within the children’s splash park area of the swimming pool when he walked across the thick metal door in his bare feet. The metal access door was scaldingly hot due to the conduction from the sun which caused severe burns to the bottom of minor plaintiff’s feet. Due to the burns on his feet, minor plaintiff fell onto the metal access door and severely burned his legs. Due to the severity of the burns, the minor plaintiff was taken to UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh and later transferred to UPMC Mercy Burn Unit,” the suit stated.
“By reason of the carelessness and negligence of the defendant, the minor plaintiff suffered severe and permanent injuries which consist of the following: (a) partial thickness burns to bilateral fee; (b) partial thickness burns to right leg; (c) burns to left palm; (d) permanent scarring to both feet; (e) permanent scarring to the right leg and (f) severe shock to the nerves and nervous system.”
In an answer and new matter filed on Aug. 9, Shaler Township denied liability for the toddler’s burn injuries.
“Defendant avers that plaintiffs failed to comply with the applicable statute of limitations. Defendant avers that it did not know, or have reason to know, of any alleged dangerous condition at/near the children’s waterpark as alleged by the plaintiffs, the same not being admitted. Defendant avers that it did not have any prior notice of an alleged ‘dangerous condition’ as described by the plaintiffs in plaintiffs’ complaint, the same not being admitted. To the extent that it is determined/adjudged through the course of this litigation that the metal access doors were a ‘dangerous condition of the real property’, the same not being admitted, then minor plaintiff’s parents and/or her guardians knew or should have known of this open and obvious alleged ‘dangerous condition of the real property.’ Defendant avers that the alleged, ‘dangerous condition of the property,’ the same not being admitted, was open and obvious to minor plaintiff’s parents or guardians. The claims asserted by plaintiffs against this defendant are governed, eliminated and/or barred by provisions of the Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, and the immunities and damages limitations conferred upon this party by the provisions of said act. The defendant did not breach any statutory or common law duty owed to any party to this action and all claims against this defendant are barred,” according to the defense’s new matter.
“This defendant is entitled to full and/or qualified immunity for all claims asserted against it in this action. To the extent plaintiffs received, or are eligible to receive, benefits under a policy of insurance for the damages which they allege, the amount of such benefits shall be deducted from the amount of damages that would otherwise be recoverable by plaintiffs pursuant to the Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act. Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. Any losses or damages alleged by the plaintiffs herein, the same not being admitted, were not the result of any action or inaction of the defendant, but rather of other persons, including the plaintiffs, over which this defendant had no right to control. Defendant pleads the defense of comparative and/or contributory negligence. The defendant pleads intervening, superseding acts as a complete defense to any negligence claim asserted by plaintiffs. The defendant avers that the defense of assumption of the risk is applicable to this alleged incident.”
UPDATE
In a Sept. 27 reply to the new matter, the plaintiffs denied it as conclusions of law to which no official response was required, and denied that they both had prior notice of the dangerous condition concerned or were comparatively negligent.
For counts of negligence and remuneration of medical expenses, the plaintiffs are seeking damages in excess of the jurisdictional limits of arbitration and costs of suit.
The plaintiffs are represented by Charles F. Bowers III of Bowers Fawcett & Hurst, in Ambridge.
The defendant is represented by Jason A. Hines of Summers McDonnell Hudock Guthrie & Rauch, in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas GD-23-007352
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com