MEDIA – An Italian company has denied responsibility for a Philadelphia man’s injuries, when he lost two fingers on his right hand in a hydraulic bending machine, allegedly due to the device not being equipped with necessary guards and warnings to its users.
Amari Moulton of Philadelphia first filed suit in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas on Sept. 12 versus Skyline Emissions, Inc., ESW Group, Inc. (doing business as “ESW Group”), Environmental Solutions Worldwide, Inc. (doing business as “ESW Group”), ESW America, Inc., ESW CleanTech, Inc. and Technology Fabricators, Inc., all of Montgomeryville, plus E.G. Heller’s Son, Inc. of Los Angeles, Calif., M.G. Srl of Italy, John Doe Management Company, John Doe Ownership Company, John Doe Service Company, John Doe Manufacturer and John Doe Distributor.
“At all times mentioned herein and material hereto, plaintiff Amari Moulton was employed as a fabricator at a manufacturing facility located at 200 Progress Drive, Montgomeryville, PA. Fabricators are required to perform various metal fabrication tasks associated with building of diesel exhaust system components,” the suit said.
“Fabricators at this facility are required to be physically capable of rolling, seam welding, pressing, coining, and forming various exhaust system components. Fabricators utilized a hydraulic plate bending machine (Model: PK 05 – Serial No. 06134) designed, manufactured, advertised, marketed, sold and shipped by defendants E.G. Heller’s Son, Inc., M.G. Srl, John Doe Manufacturer and John Doe Distributor. The M.G. Srl hydraulic plate bending machine lacked necessary guards and warnings.”
The suit added that due to the catastrophic injury suffered by the plaintiff, he is unable to perform even the most basic job duties, at any job, including typing.
“On or about Oct. 30, 2021, plaintiff, in the course and scope of his duties at the facility, was working the warehouse located at 200 Progress Drive, Montgomeryville, Pennsylvania. Upon information and belief, plaintiff was tasked with utilizing a hydraulic plate bending machine. The hydraulic plate bending machine is designed and intended to be used for the processing of sheet metal to impart a bend. Factory defendants tasked plaintiff with improper and unsafe use of the hydraulic plate bending machine that is contrary to the operator’s manual. On or about Oct. 30, 2021, due to deficient and inadequate policies and procedures, plaintiff was tasked with using the hydraulic bending machine to flatten metal rope. On or about Oct. 30, 2021, due to deficient and inadequate policies and procedures, plaintiff was provided inappropriate, improper and insufficient personal protective equipment,” the suit stated.
“On or about Oct. 30, 2021, plaintiff was tasked with feeding the metal rope into the hydraulic bending machine, when the rope caught onto plaintiff’s glove and dragged his right hand into the rollers. Factory defendants failed to implement necessary training and protocols that would have prevented this accident. All defendants failed to install necessary guarding and warnings on the hydraulic bending machine that would have prevented this accident. All defendants failed to provide a proper, appropriate and safe machine to perform work. As a result of defendants’ failures, plaintiff suffered serious and permanent injuries including amputations to the second and third digits of his right hand.”
On Oct. 26, defendants Skyline Emissions, Inc., ESW America, Inc., Environmental Solutions Worldwide, Inc., ESW Cleantech, Inc. and Technology Fabricators, Inc. filed an answer, new matter and cross-claims (against their co-defendants) in the case, which denied the plaintiff’s substantive allegations.
“Plaintiff’s complaint fails to set forth a claim against answering defendants upon which relief can be granted. Any injuries suffered by the plaintiff such as alleged in plaintiff’s complaint were the result of, contributed to, or caused by the dangers, the risk of which plaintiff knowingly and consciously assumed and therefore recovery is barred pursuant to the doctrine of the assumption of the risk. If plaintiff was injured as alleged, which injuries are specifically denied, said injuries were due in whole or in part to plaintiff’s own negligence. Therefore, plaintiff’s claims are barred and/or limited to the provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. Any injury or damage sustained by plaintiff was a direct and proximate result of plaintiff’s own conduct. Answering defendants were not negligent and/or careless at any time material hereto. Any injuries or damages to the plaintiff were caused by third parties over whom answering defendants had no authority or control,” the defense’s new matter stated, in part.
“Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrines of assumption of the risk, laches, release, res judicata, statute of limitations and waiver. Plaintiff suffered no injury or damages as a result of any act or omission by answering defendants. Answering defendants owed no duty to plaintiff under any statutory and/or common law. At all times material hereto, answering defendants’ actions were proper and reasonable under the circumstances. Plaintiff’s claims may be barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel. Plaintiff may have entered into a release which bars and/or limited recovery in this action. Plaintiff’s claims are barred or substantially reduced because of plaintiff’s failure to act reasonably or timely to mitigate damages. Answering defendants are not responsible under any theory of liability.”
The very same day, Oct. 26, the plaintiff refuted the defendants’ answer and new matter in its entirety as nothing more than conclusions of law to which no official response was required.
UPDATE
On Nov. 15, M.G. Srl answered the case and provided new matter on its own defense, which sought to refute the cross-claims levied against it by the ESW defendants.
“The ESW defendants’ cross-claims fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The ESW defendants’ cross-claims are barred by the doctrine of laches, by the doctrine of estoppel, by the doctrine of waiver, by the doctrine of assumption of risk and by the doctrine of unclean hands. MG pleads the doctrines of comparative and/or contributory negligence. Any acts or omissions of MG were not the factual cause of any damages that plaintiff may have suffered. Any damages that plaintiff may have suffered were caused by the acts or omissions of others over whom or which MG had no control. Any damages that plaintiff may have suffered were the proximate result of the sole negligence and acts and/or omissions of the ESW defendants and plaintiff, and not of MG. Any damages that plaintiff may have suffered were the result of intervening and/or superseding causes over which MG had no control. Any damages that plaintiff may have suffered were the result of plaintiff’s failure to use personal protective equipment, whether of his own accord or by direction or indirection of any and/or all defendants, excluding MG. To the extent the subject plate bending machine at issue in plaintiff’s complaint was manufactured by MG, MG manufactured the plate bending machine in a safe and operable manner with all necessary warnings and guards. To the extent the subject plate bending machine at issue in plaintiff’s complaint was manufactured by MG, MG manufactured the subject plate bending machine free of any defects,” the answer stated.
“To the extent the subject plate bending machine at issue in plaintiff’s complaint was manufactured by MG, MG manufactured the subject plate bending machine free of defects in accordance with the manufacturer’s design and specifications and with other typical units of the same product line. To the extent the subject plate bending machine at issue in plaintiff’s complaint was manufactured by MG, MG manufactured the subject plate bending machine such that it performed as safely as an ordinary consumer would have expected it to perform when used in its intended way. To the extent the subject plate bending machine at issue in plaintiff’s complaint was manufactured by MG, there were substantial changes, or was a substantial change, so extraordinary that MG did not and could not have reasonably foreseen them or it, after the subject plate bending machine left MG’s possession and control. To the extent the subject plate bending machine at issue in plaintiff’s complaint was manufactured by MG, the plate bending machine was used in an unintended way so extraordinary that it was not and could not have been reasonably foreseen by MG.”
In a Nov. 16 reply to the new matter, the plaintiff denied those arguments as conclusions of law to which no official response was required, per the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
For multiple counts of negligence and strict liability, the plaintiff is seeking, jointly and/or severally, compensatory damages in excess of $50,000, delay damages pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 238, interest and allowable costs of suit.
The plaintiff is represented by Larry Bendesky, Adam J. Pantano and Jordan L. Howell of Saltz Mongeluzzi & Bendesky, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Timothy J. Kepner of William J. Ferren & Associates in Hartford, Conn., plus Jayson R. Wolfgang and Stephanie N. Patton of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, in Harrisburg.
Delaware County Court of Common Pleas case CV-2023-007817
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com