PITTSBURGH – A Western Pennsylvania couple maintain that a pair of hunting boots the husband-plaintiff purchased were designed defectively, causing the soles of the boot to unexpectedly separate and him to suffer an injurious fall.
Robert M. Amic and Carrie L. Amic of McDonald first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Aug. 3 versus Rocky Brands, Inc. of Nelsonville, Ohio and Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. (doing business as “Field & Stream”), of Coraopolis.
“On or about Jan. 4, 2019, Mr. Amic purchased a new pair of men’s hunting boots, Bearclaw Gore-Tex Waterproof 1000G Insulated Hunting Boots, from Field & Stream (Store No. 5509), located at 60 Old Mill Boulevard, Washington County, Pennsylvania 15301. Plaintiffs believe and, therefore, avers that defendant-Rocky and defendant-DSG designed, tested, manufactured, inspected, produced marketed, distributed and/or sold the subject boots,” the suit said.
“On or about Dec. 11, 2021, Mr. Amic, 63 years old, was walking in the subject boots when the outsole and midsole of the boot detached from the rest of the boot. As a result of the subject incident, Mr. Amic lost his balance and forcefully hit the ground sustaining serious injuries. Prior to this subject incident, Mr. Amic had only worn the boots two other times.”
The suit added that the outsole and midsole of the boot detached from the rest of the boot due to the defective design and/or manufacture of the subject boot by defendant-Rocky and/or the failure to adequately warn and/or instruct by defendant-Rocky, in addition to the delay by defendant-Rocky to correct such defective design and/or manufacture of the subject boot and/or to alert anticipated consumers of such defects associated therewith, among other failures.
“Plaintiffs believe, and, therefore, aver that defendant-Rocky knew and/or should have known of the falling and/or tripping hazard with its products, including the subject boots: A) Before it sold the subject boot to Mr. Amic in January 2019; and B) before the subject fall in December 2021. Despite knowing and/or having reason to know of such falling and/or tripping hazards with its products, including the subject boots, before Mr. Amic’s fall, defendants failed to: A) Properly respond to such hazards and/or delayed its response thereto; B) timely correct such hazard; and/or C) warn consumers of such hazard,” the suit stated.
“As a result of the subject fall, Mr. Amic sustained injuries and damages, including, but not limited to the following, all or some of which may be permanent in nature: Angulated displaced periprosthetic fracture of the proximal femur – which required surgery; hip replacement; bipolar left hip arthroplasty; spiral fracture – right femur; soft tissue swelling; large olecranon enthesophyte – right elbow; tricep detachment – right arm; overall muscle weakness; overall soft tissue swelling; pain and suffering; inconvenience and disruption of daily activities; loss of enjoyment of life and life’s pleasures; past and future medical expenses; residual injuries and complications from incident-related injuries and medical treatment necessitated by incident-related injuries.”
UPDATE
A Dec. 28 answer to the suit denied its substantive allegations and provided numerous affirmative defenses per its new matter.
“Defendants believe and therefore aver that plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. At the time the boots in question left defendants’ possession, they were in good condition. At the time the boots in question left defendants’ possession, they were not defective. Upon information and belief, the condition of the boots in question was materially altered after they left the possession of defendants. Upon information and belief, the boots in question were not properly maintained after they left the possession of defendants,” according to that new matter, in part.
“Upon information and belief, the boots in question were damaged after they left the possession of defendants. Upon information and belief, the boots in question were misused after they left the possession of defendants. Upon information and belief, the boots in question were being used for a purpose other than their intended purpose. Upon information and belief, the boots in question were not stored properly after they left the possession of defendants. Upon information and belief, the boots in question were not property cleaned after they left the possession of defendants.”
The defendants additionally denied and any all negligence on their parts and cited the doctrine of laches, statute of repose and spoliation of evidence as affirmative defenses in this matter.
In a Jan. 8 reply to the new matter, the plaintiffs denied it in its entirety and demanded strict proof of same at trial.
For multiple counts of strict liability, negligence, breach of warranties, violation of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law and loss of consortium, the plaintiffs are seeking judgment in excess of the applicable arbitration limits, exclusive of interest and costs.
The plaintiffs are represented by Wayne M. Chiurazzi, Donna M. Flaherty and Sarah M. Benedetti of The Chiurazzi Law Group, in Pittsburgh.
The defendants are represented by Cheryl Esposito Kaufman of the Law Office of Cheryl Esposito Kaufman, also in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-23-009424
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com