PHILADELPHIA – A Philadelphia man’s lawsuit claiming that a candle he had lit nearly three years ago caught fire and ignited in an explosive fashion - causing him to suffer severe burns to his fingers, hands and arms - will be addressed in arbitration as opposed to a courtroom.
Michael Mastro first filed suit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on March 31 versus Bath & Body Works, LLC, Bath & Body Works, Inc., Bath & Body Works, Inc., Direct, Inc. and Bath & Body Works Brand Management, Inc. of Columbus, Ohio, The White Barn Candle Company and The White Barn Candle Co. of Reynoldsburg, Ohio, John Doe Corporations 1-5 and John Does 1-5.
“On or about April 3, 2021 at 1172 Dublin Court, Williamstown, NJ 08094 plaintiff was using the candle when, suddenly and without warning, the candle broke, exploded, caught fire and/or ignited, causing the premises of 1172 Dublin Court, Williamstown, NJ 08094 and its contents to catch fire and burning the plaintiff, sustaining the injuries set forth below,” the suit said.
“The plaintiff did not alter or in any manner change the character of the aforementioned candle, between the time the candle was provided to the plaintiff and the time of the aforementioned fire. At the time and place of the aforementioned incident, the candle was in the same condition when it was sold and/or provided to the plaintiff. The condition of the candle remained unchanged at all times mentioned in the complaint and, in particular, when plaintiff sustained injuries in the incident.”
The suit added the plaintiff was using the candle for its intended use, was unaware of any defect in the candle or any danger to the plaintiff and when the plaintiff sustained the injuries set forth below, the candle was in a defective condition and was unreasonably dangerous, a condition “not known to the plaintiff.”
“As a result of the liability producing conduct of the defendants set forth below, plaintiff suffered severe and disabling injuries to the bones, muscles, skin, nerves, tendons, ligaments, tissues and blood vessels of his body, including but not limited to, burns to his hands, arms, fingers with resultant scarring, together with shock, emotional upset and other secondary problems and complications, the full extent of which are not yet known and some or all of which are permanent in nature,” the suit stated.
“As a result of the liability-producing conduct of the defendants as set forth below, plaintiff has in the past required, and may in the future continue to require, surgical/medical care and hospitalization including surgical procedures, and he has in the past incurred and may in the future continue to incur, substantial expenses for medicine, hospital, medical care, surgery and/or rehabilitative care to attend to, treat, alleviate, minimize and/or cure his conditions.”
On July 3, the defendants removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, citing the complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount of damages in question exceeding the jurisdictional threshold.
One week later, on July 10, the defendants answered the complaint and denied responsibility for the subject events and injuries at issue.
“Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state any viable claims against these defendants for which relief can be granted. The product at issue was changed, altered or modified to a condition different from that in which it was when it left the care, custody and control of the manufacturer and/or retailer for which defendants are not liable. The product at issue was abused, misused, improperly used, improperly maintained and/or damaged, subsequent to the time it left the care, custody and control of the manufacturer and/or retailer for which defendants are not liable. The product at issue was improperly inspected without notice to defendants or its agents and thus is subject to spoliation defenses throughout discovery and trial. The product at issue was subject to misuse and/or abnormal use and/or unintended use which was unreasonable and not foreseeable by defendants and for which defendants are not liable. Plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk of the activities alleged in the complaint, and the damages allegedly sustained by plaintiff were proximately caused or contributed to by such voluntary assumption of the risk,” the answer’s affirmative defenses stated, in part.
“The product at issue was manufactured and produced in full compliance with any and all applicable governmental regulations and/or specifications. Plaintiff’s claims for breach of express or implied warranty or any other warranties are hereby barred for the reason that plaintiff failed to rely in any way upon any alleged warranties with respect to the selection, purchase and use of the product herein. Insofar as plaintiff is making a claim for breach of warranty, plaintiff failed to give defendants notice within a reasonable amount of time after they discovered or should have discovered any alleged breach of contract or warranty, thereby voiding any breach of warranty claim. The damages allegedly sustained by plaintiff, if any, were solely or partly the proximate result of the plaintiff’s own negligence and/or comparative negligence, or the negligence and/or comparative negligence of third parties over whom defendants had no control or right of control, and as such any recovery upon the claims asserted by plaintiff are barred or proportionately reduced pursuant to the laws that pertain to comparative fault and pro rata liability. Plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages. No warranty, express or implied, were made by defendants, or arose by operation of law in favor of plaintiff as against defendants.”
The defendants further argued that the plaintiff’s claims may be barred or their recovery may be limited by operation of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, and also levied cross-claims against all of the John Doe defendants, holding them fully responsible for the events in question.
UPDATE
Counsel for all parties submitted a joint stipulation on Jan. 2, which would move the case from the courtroom to arbitration. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Juan R. Sanchez authorized the agreement two days later.
“Defendants, Bath & Body Works, LLC, Bath & Body Works, Inc., Bath & Body Works Direct, Inc. (incorrectly identified as Bath & Body Works, Inc., Direct, Inc.), Bath & Body Works Brand Management, Inc. and plaintiff Michael Mastro, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and agree that damages in this case do not exceed $150,000 and this case should therefore be remanded to the Court’s arbitration program,” the stipulation stated.
For 24 total counts of negligence, strict liability and breach of warranty against all of the defendants, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of $50,000, plus costs, interest and other relief as is proper and just.
The plaintiff is represented by Allan J. Aigeldinger III of The Law Offices of Craig A. Altman, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Sean T. Stadelman of Goldberg Segalla, also in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 2:23-cv-02550
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 230303577
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com