PITTSBURGH – A crane design company has rejected allegations from an Allegheny County man, who claimed it was responsible for him suffering severe burns and smoke inhalation, when a crane at the site he was working at failed and caused a subsequent explosive release of 55 tons of molten metal.
David Beach first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Oct. 17 versus D&S Hoist and Crane, LLC of Coraopolis and Simmers Crane Design & Services Company, of Salem, Ohio.
“At all times relevant hereto, plaintiff was employed by Universal Stainless and Alloy Products which is a company that produces, among other things, finished specialty steel products and plate. At all times relevant hereto, plaintiff was employed as an AOD helper and operator in the plant located in Bridgeville, Pennsylvania,” the suit stated.
“On Dec. 7, 2021, there was a failure of Hot Metal Crane No. 2, which resulted in the ladle traveling downward without control, coming into contact with slag pots and the pit below in turn releasing approximately 55 tons of molten metal, with temperatures of 2,800 to 3,000 degrees into the AOD pit, and when the molten metal contacted the material in the pit, there was a reaction which caused an energy displacement into the melt shop building where plaintiff was working. As a result of the explosion, there was a concussive reaction releasing dust, chemicals and gaseous materials from the pit, rafters and other parts of the facility, causing a blackout.”
The suit went on to say that due to the blackout, the plaintiff was unable to see and had to carefully crawl up the steps and along a catwalk to get to the outside of the melt shop.
“As plaintiff crawled out of the building, he felt intense burning on his neck, upper chest, upper back and lower occipital portions of his scalp due to hot metal products coming into contact with his skin. While plaintiff was crawling out of the building, he inhaled fumes, dust, chemicals and gaseous materials,” the suit said.
“It is believed and therefore averred that a coupling on the hoist motor and/or other components had sheared the internal spline on the driveshaft side of the crane. It is further believed that the coupling was located on the gearbox side of the motor, which resulted in the motor side brake being disabled, which in turn caused the downward movement of the crane hoist. At all times relevant hereto, the defendants were under contract with Universal Stainless to inspect, maintain, service and repair the crane, its components, and relevant parts of the melt shop, including but not limited to, the ladle, crane and components thereof.”
As a result of the defendants’ negligence, the suit said the plaintiff suffered a litany of injuries, including: Acute thermal burns on his upper chest, back, neck and lower portions of occipital areas requiring extensive treatment in a burn unit, hydrotherapy and medications, severe smoke inhalation of smoke, dust, fumes, chemicals and gaseous material, difficulty breathing, difficulty speaking, congestion, throat discomfort, muscle tension dysphonia, chronic cough, laryngopharyngeal reflux, shortness of breath, acute pain and sleep disturbance and disorder, among many other injuries.
UPDATE
On Nov. 27, Simmers Crane Design & Services Company answered the complaint, denying the substance of its primary allegations, asserting affirmative defenses on its own behalf and redirecting liability to its co-defendant D&S Hoist and Crane, LLC, through a cross-claim.
“Simmers has denied liability in its answer. In the alternative, if it is determined that Simmers was negligent, which is denied, and that plaintiff sustained the injuries and damages alleged, which is denied as set forth herein, then in that alternative, Simmers denies its negligence was the sole and proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries and damages. To the contrary, any injuries and damages sustained by the plaintiff was the direct and proximate result of the conduct of persons and/or entities over which Simmers had no control,” the answer’s defenses stated.
“Simmers was not negligent at any time relevant hereto. Simmers did not breach any duty owed plaintiff. Simmers reserves the right to plead, prove and/or assert any and all other affirmative defenses, including, but not limited to, those contained in Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1030, that the evidence or facts adduced during the course of this action or during the trial of this action reveal are warranted.”
One week later, on Dec. 4, the plaintiff replied to the new matter and characterized it as conclusions of law, to which no official response was required.
For two counts of negligence, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of the arbitration limits of Allegheny County, plus costs and any other damages the Court deems appropriate.
The plaintiff is represented by Kenneth J. Nolan of Phil DiLucente & Associates, in Pittsburgh.
The defendants are represented by Susan D. Garrard of William J. Ferren & Associates in Hartford, Conn., plus Darren M. Newberry and Michael D. Winsko of Marshall Dennehey, in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-23-012064
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com