Quantcast

Garnet Valley School District keeps pursuing costs of garage fire

PENNSYLVANIA RECORD

Tuesday, December 24, 2024

Garnet Valley School District keeps pursuing costs of garage fire

Schools
Dennisjcrawford

Crawford | Crawford Law

MEDIA – The Garnet Valley School District has, through its insurer, stood by its product liability lawsuit against the North Carolina-based manufacturer of a bus which caught fire in the garage where the vehicles were stored, and severely damaged it.

CM Regent Insurance Company (as subrogee of Garnet Valley School District) of Mechanicsburg first filed suit in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas on June 28 versus Thomas Built Buses, Inc. of High Point, N.C.

“On or about March 24, 2022, a fire occurred at the Garnet Valley School District Bus Garage located at 552 Smithbridge Road, Glen Mills, PA 19342. The fire originated from a 2007 Thomas Built Transitliner School Bus with VIN 1T88T4C2471283956, identified as Bus 88, particularly in the area of the circuit board panel compartment under the driver’s side window,” the suit stated.

“Upon investigation, the fire was caused by a defect in the circuit panel boards in that they were not protected by a Protective Cover for PC Boards (as provided by Thomas Built Product Service Bulletin B Index 5 #19). Upon information and belief, a Safety Awareness Bulletin No. #002B from Thomas Built was never provided to the Garnet Valley School District.”

The suit continued that the District was not aware of the possible dangerous condition posed by the uncovered circuit board in the subject bus.

“As a result of the aforementioned incident, CM Regent’s insured filed an insurance claim with it for the property damage caused by the incident. As a result of this claim, plaintiff sustained damages in the amount of $17,899 in payments for the restoration, repair, and replacement of the damaged property. As a result of these payments, plaintiff now, as subrogee of the Garnet Valley School District, seeks to recover the aforementioned damages, owing to Thomas Built’s negligence, strict products liability and breach of warranty,” the suit said.

“Plaintiff alleges that the incident subject to this complaint would not have occurred but for the negligence of the defendant. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and carelessness of Thomas Built, as described above, CM Regent’s insured was forced to have extensive restoration and repair work done to the subject school bus. By reason of the foregoing, CM Regent suffered damages in the amount of $17,899, together with interest and costs of this action, to which they are subrogated.”

Moreover, the plaintiff argued that at all times relevant to this complaint, Thomas Built failed to notify the plaintiff’s insured of the known dangerous condition the unprotected circuit boards posed as provided in Safety Awareness Bulletin No. #002B.

“The defect in the subject bus led to the fire that destroyed the subject bus. An alternative design, namely a protective cover board over the circuit board, was feasible at the time the bus at issue was manufactured. At all times relevant to this complaint, the design of the subject bus was defective at the time it left the manufacturing facility of Thomas Built. Under the circumstances then and there existing, the subject Thomas Built bus, was unsafe for its intended use for the reason that that the product had caused an unreasonably dangerous condition,” the suit alleged.

“As a direct and proximate result of the defective condition of the subject Thomas Built bus, the subject incident occurred, causing the property damage sustained by CM Regent’s insured, for which it has paid. By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff, CM Regent suffered damages in the amount of $17,899, together with interest and costs of this action, to which they are subrogated.”

UPDATE

In a Sept. 12 answer to the complaint, Thomas Built Buses, Inc. admitted that the “thermal event” in the bus “originated in or around the panel box located beneath the driver’s window on the left side of the bus” – but “specifically denied that there was a defect in any product manufactured, assembled or distributed by [itself].”

“Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as to some or all of plaintiff’s claims. Thomas Built’s conduct was not the legal or factual cause, in whole or in part, of the purported damages alleged by plaintiff, and such alleged damages were caused by acts and/or omissions of others. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, due to alteration, misuse, abuse and/or improper maintenance of the subject bus. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, due to negligence on the part of plaintiff’s subrogor relative to the use, maintenance and service of the subject bus, thus causing the damages plaintiff complains of in its complaint,” the answer stated, in part.

“The claims for recovery of damages are barred, in whole or in part, by the failure to avoid, minimize or mitigate the damages. Plaintiff’s claims are barred on the grounds that the subject bus was not in any way defective. The damages allegedly suffered by plaintiff in this action, which are denied, were caused by intervening and/or superseding causes. The damages allegedly suffered in this action, which are denied, may have been caused in whole or in part by the acts (wrongful or otherwise), negligence, sole fault, misuse, abuse, modification, alteration, omission, or fault of one or more persons or entities over whom Thomas Built exercises no control and for whom Thomas Built is not legally responsible, including, without limitation, plaintiff’s subrogor.”

Two days later, on Sept. 14, the plaintiff answered the new matter and generally denied it pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e).

For counts of negligence and strict products liability, the plaintiff is seeking damages in the amount of $17,899, together with the costs of this action and any other relief this Court may deem just and proper.

The plaintiff is represented by Dennis J. Crawford of Crawford Law, in Audubon, N.J.

The defendant is represented by Alice S. Johnston and Raymond J. Hunter of Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, in Philadelphia.

Delaware County Court of Common Pleas case CV-2023-005563

From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com

More News