PITTSBURGH – A Western Pennsylvania man has reiterated claims that he lost two fingers on his left hand when a heavy-duty cylindrical cask he was helping to load slipped from a skid and crushed his hand.
Peter Rotondo of Millvale first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Dec. 13 versus Holtec Manufacturing Division, Inc., Holtec International Manufacturing Division and Holtec International of Turtle Creek, plus John Doe and ABC Corporation.
“The events complained of occurred on or about Dec. 18, 2020, at defendant Holtec’s facility, located in Turtle Creek, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. At all times material hereto, defendant Holtec and/or defendant ABC Corporation had a responsibility, and duty to ensure a safe working environment to all individuals performing work at their facility, including plaintiff Peter Rotondo. Rotondo was acting within the course and scope of his employment with Deufol Sunman, Inc., and was present at defendant Holtec’s facility in order to perform his job duties,” the suit said.
“Rotondo was assisting with loading a Hi-Star cylindrical cask onto a skid, a cask which weighed well in excess of 100,000 pounds. The Hi-Star cylindrical cask was being loaded onto a skid by a crane, a crane which was being operated by defendant John Doe, an agent/servant/employee of defendant Holtec, or in the alternative, an agent/servant/employee of defendant ABC Corporation. The Hi-Star cylindrical cask was caused to be shifted, moved and/or slipped from the crane as it was being loaded onto the skid, which resulted in plaintiff Rotondo’s left hand being crushed between the Hi-Star cylindrical cask and the skid that it was being loaded onto.”
The suit added that the collective negligence of the defendants led Rotondo to suffer a series of personal injuries and damages.
“As a direct and proximate result of the joint, several and combined negligence and carelessness of defendant Holtec, John Doe and ABC Corporation, plaintiff Rotondo sustained the following injuries, some or all of which may be permanent in nature: Crush injury to his left hand and fingers; severing and amputation of part of his left index and middle fingers; various other injuries to his body as more specifically identified in his medical records and injuries and damages to the muscles, bones, ligaments, soft tissues, tendons and nerves of the various aforementioned areas of his body,” the suit stated.
On May 16, the Holtec defendants filed preliminary objections, finding that Paragraph 22(aa) of the complaint constituted “a generalized allegation of negligence and should be stricken.”
“Sub-Paragraph 22(aa) alleges ‘such other acts of negligence and carelessness as may hereinafter be revealed during discovery and/or at the time of trial of this matter.’ In the case Connor v. Allegheny General Hospital, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that a defendant faced with general allegations of negligence in a complaint was obligated to file preliminary objections to strike such generalized allegations of negligence or be subject to later amendments to the pleadings without recourse. In the present case, the allegations set forth in Sub-Paragraph 22(aa) of plaintiff’s complaint constitute improper vague and general allegations of negligence that must be stricken pursuant to the Connor case,” the objections stated.
“These allegations are too general and too vague and preclude moving defendants from meaningfully interpreting such allegations and preclude moving defendants from being able to meaningfully defend themselves in this matter. For the foregoing reasons, moving defendants Holtec Manufacturing Division, Holtec International Manufacturing Division and Holtec International respectfully requests the entry of the attached order sustaining defendants’ preliminary objections and striking the allegations set forth in Sub-Paragraph 22(aa) of plaintiff’s complaint in the form of the order attached.”
Plaintiff counsel filed an opposing brief on June 20, countering the defense arguments and advocating that their preliminary objections should be overruled.
“In their preliminary objections, defendants claim that Paragraph 22(aa) of plaintiff’s complaint are insufficiently specific and should therefore be stricken. This sub-paragraph states that defendant committed: ‘Such other acts of negligence and carelessness as may be revealed during the course of discovery and/or at the time of trial’. Defendants point to dicta from a footnote in the now infamous case of Connor v. Allegheny General Hospital. However, Footnote 3 was not determinative of the issue before the Court in Connor, and therefore is not binding on the issue presented by defendants in the instant case. Further, the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 22(aa) of the complaint are permissible under Pennsylvania law. As discussed above, this case is only at the pleadings stage and the parties have yet to complete discovery,” according to the brief.
“Paragraph 22(aa) of the complaint simply confirms what Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1033(a) already permits; namely, that the complaint can be amended at a later date to include evidence of further negligence obtained during the course of this litigation. Defendants’ position that these subparagraphs do not allow them to prepare a defense is inaccurate. In determining whether a particular paragraph in a complaint has been stated with the necessary specificity, such paragraph must be read in context with all other allegations in that complaint. When viewing this sub-paragraph, in conjunction with all of the other allegations contained within plaintiff’s complaint, the defendants have more than sufficient information to prepare their defense in this matter. Finally, defendants’ argument that they cannot ‘meaningfully defend themselves’ is without merit. The Rules of Civil Procedure allow the defendants to deny this sub-paragraph generally pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). This rule is often, if not always, utilized by defendants in denying all allegations of negligence in personal injury actions. In fact, it is almost certain that defendants in this case will deny Paragraph 22, in its entirety, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e).”
Plaintiff counsel insisted that the defendants “have more than sufficient information to prepare their defense in this matter” – and that precedent on how to handle such preliminary objections was already established in Praseut v. All Phase Contracting Solutions, LLC, Et.Al, where they were overruled by Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas Judge John T. McVay Jr.
On June 27, Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas Judge Mary C. McGinley sustained the defense’s preliminary objections.
“Upon consideration of the defendants, Holtec Manufacturing Division, Holtec International Manufacturing Division and Holtec International’s preliminary objections of plaintiff’s complaint and responses thereto, it is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed that defendants Holtec Manufacturing Division, Holtec International Manufacturing Division and Holtec International’s preliminary objections are sustained and it is ordered that Sub-Paragraph 22(aa) is stricken from plaintiff’s complaint. Defendants Holtec Manufacturing Division, Holtec International Manufacturing Division and Holtec International shall have 20 days from the receipt of this order to answer plaintiff’s complaint,” McGinley said.
On July 17, the Holtec defendants answered the complaint and provided extensive new matter.
“Plaintiff’s claims against answering defendant are barred or subject to limitation pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Share Act. Plaintiff’s claims are, or may be, barred or limited, because certain injuries claimed were not caused by the accident at issue but rather were the result of an accident or medical condition unrelated to the incident at issue. Plaintiff assumed the risk of his own conduct. Plaintiff caused his own injury and/or increased his risk of harm due to his own conduct. Plaintiff was comparatively negligent. Plaintiff’s claims are barred or otherwise limited by the doctrines of waiver, unclean hands and/or estoppel. The negligence and/or conduct of other defendant, persons, entities or parties served as a superseding and/or intervening cause of the injury and/or death claimed. Plaintiff failed to mitigate damages and therefore certain claims are, or may be, barred or reduced,” the new matter stated, in part.
“Answering defendants had no notice of any dangerous and/or defective condition alleged by plaintiff. Plaintiff suffered no injury or damage as a result of any act or omission by answering defendants. Answering defendants owed no duty to plaintiff under statutory and/or common law. No dangerous condition or hazard caused plaintiff’s incident. At all times material hereto, answering defendants acted in a proper and reasonable manner with regard to its acts and/or omissions claimed in this matter. Plaintiff’s claims may be barred because of statutory immunities available to answering defendant. Answering defendants may be immune from liability as the employer and/or statutory employer. Plaintiff’s claims may be barred and/or limited pursuant to the immunity provisions of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act.”
The new matter continued that the plaintiff “failed to abide by the safety protocols governing his job and this failure alone caused his injury, was inattentive and/or became distracted this alone caused his injury, carelessly placed his hand in a zone of danger and this alone caused his injury, and that the plaintiff carelessly failed to heed warnings about what could occur if he placed his hand in a zone of danger.”
UPDATE
An Aug. 14 reply to the new matter saw the plaintiff deny it in its entirety.
“The averments contained within [these paragraphs] of defendants’ new matter contain conclusions of law to which no response was required. To the extent that a response is deemed to be required, said averments are denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Strict proof thereof is demanded,” the reply stated.
For multiple counts of negligence, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of the mandatory arbitration limits of Allegheny County, plus all associated interest, costs and such other relief as this Honorable Court may deem to be just and appropriate.
The plaintiff is represented by Christopher M. Miller and Shawn D. Kressley of DelVecchio & Miller, in Pittsburgh.
The defendants are represented by R. Erick Chizmar of the Law Offices of W. Kelly McWilliams, in Philadelphia.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-22-015384
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com