PITTSBURGH – Two defendants named in a product liability action by a group of plaintiffs severely burned in a propane tank explosion and two of their spouses have hit back at claims they were contributorily liable for the explosion through their manufacture of the products involved in the incident.
Travis Burns and Erika Burns of Springboro, James Getty and Mary Getty of North East and Kyle Mattera of Clymer, N.Y. first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Aug. 16 versus Goodall (also known as “Goodall Rubber Company”) of Trenton, N.J., Eriks North America, Inc. of Pittsburgh, John Does 1-10 and ABC Corporations 1-10.
(An amended complaint was filed on Jan. 24, further naming LGG Industrial, Inc. of Pittsburgh, Lowbucs Propane of Wattsburg, 21st Century Energy Group, Inc. and Reed Oil Company, both of New Castle, Pa., as additional defendants).
“On Jan. 31, 2022, plaintiffs Travis Burns, James Getty and Kyle Mattera were on site at a tank filling building located at 12560 Route 8, Wattsburg, PA 16442, filling propane tanks with gas, one or more which were connected to a Goodall LPG Hose. As plaintiffs were filling a propane tank, the hose ruptured and/or leaked and/or failed resulting in the leak of propane gas and an explosion, causing plaintiffs to sustain multiple serious and permanent personal injuries,” the suit said.
“The aforementioned product were defectively manufactured, tested, inspected, marketed, advertised, promoted, distributed, supplied, sold, certified, serviced, and/or maintained, and was unreasonably dangerous, in that it violated the reasonable expectations of plaintiffs to perform and operate in a safe, expected and intended manner (failed the consumer expectation test), and created serious risks of harm during use which far outweighed the burden of making the subject product safe (failed the risk-utility test).”
The suit added that the aforementioned product “was defective because it lacked elements necessary for safe use, such as effective and adequate warnings to alert the user that the product was likely to rupture and/or fail and therefore capable of causing an explosion under certain conditions.”
“As a direct and factual cause of the product’s defective conditions, and/or the negligence, carelessness, and recklessness of the defendants, plaintiff Travis Burns sustained serious and permanent injuries, including, but not limited to: Burns over and throughout his entire body, inhalation injuries and burns, permanent scarring and disfigurement; shock to the nerves and nervous system; mental trauma, including depression and anxiety; pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life’s pleasures; loss of earnings and/or loss or diminishment of future earning capacity; past and future medical expenses; embarrassment and humiliation; and other physical, emotional, and/or economic injuries,” the suit stated.
“As a direct and factual cause of the product’s defective conditions, and/or the negligence, carelessness, and recklessness of the defendants, plaintiff James Getty sustained serious and permanent injuries, including, but not limited to: Burns over and throughout his entire body, including third-degree burns to the head, scalp, face, ears, neck, back, anterior trunk, posterior trunk, right buttock, left buttock, right lower arm, bilateral hands, right thigh, and left thigh, and second-degree burns to the right thigh; periorbital burns and contusions with edema, vision loss; inhalation injuries and burns; right shoulder injuries, including rotator cuff tear and biceps tendon tear, requiring reverse total shoulder arthroplasty and biceps tenodesis; contusions over entire body; head injury; permanent scarring and disfigurement; shock to the nerves and nervous system; mental trauma, including depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder; pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life’s pleasures; loss and destroyed medical devices, including hearing aids and glasses; loss of earnings and/or loss or diminishment of future earning capacity; past and future medical expenses; embarrassment and humiliation; and other physical, emotional, and/or economic injuries.”
“As a direct and factual cause of the product’s defective conditions, and/or the negligence, carelessness, and recklessness of the defendants, plaintiff Kyle Mattera sustained serious and permanent injuries, including, but not limited to: Burns over and throughout his entire body, particularly second and third-degree burns to his face, head, ears, neck, back, stomach, and right hand, damage to his right ear nerve endings, loss of hearing in his right ear, inhalation injuries and burns; permanent scarring and disfigurement; shock to the nerves and nervous system; mental trauma, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression and anxiety, nightmares and flashbacks; pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life’s pleasures; loss of earnings and/or loss or diminishment of future earning capacity; past and future medical expenses; embarrassment and humiliation; and other physical, emotional, and/or economic injuries.”
UPDATE
On March 14, defendants LGG Industrial, Inc. and Goodall each separately filed answers, new matter and cross-claims to the amended complaint.
“Answering defendant denies each averment in plaintiffs’ amended complaint not specifically admitted in its answer. Answering defendant denies it manufactured and/or sold the alleged product(s) at issue. Answering defendant denies any liability, including liability pursuant to successor liability, de facto merger, merger and consolidation, mere continuation of the predecessor corporation, and product(s)-in line continuation. Answering defendant denies any product(s) at issue were defective,” per LGG Industrial’s new matter, in part.
“Answering defendant denies any product(s) at issue were unreasonably dangerous and that it owed any duty of care to plaintiffs. To the extent any duty was owed by answering defendant to plaintiffs, answering defendant did no breach any such duty owed to plaintiffs. Answering defendant denies any breach of any express warranties. Answering defendant denies any breach of any implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose and/or merchantability. Answering defendant asserts the alleged product(s) at issue were of merchantable quality, fit, safe and in the proper condition for the ordinary use for which it was designed and used.”
In Goodall’s new matter, they asserted similar defenses on their own behalf.
“Answering defendant denies each averment in plaintiffs’ amended complaint not specifically admitted in its answer. Answering defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to who manufactured and/or sold and/or distributed the alleged product(s) at issue. Answering defendant denies any liability, including liability pursuant to successor liability, de facto merger, merger and consolidation, mere continuation of the predecessor corporation, and product(s)-in line continuation. Answering defendant denies any product(s) at issue were defective,” according to Goodall’s new matter.
“Answering defendant denies any product(s) at issue were unreasonably dangerous. Answering defendant denies it owed any duty of care to plaintiffs. To the extent any duty was owed by answering defendant to plaintiffs, answering defendant did no breach any such duty owed to plaintiffs. Answering defendant denies the existence of any warranties and also denies any breach of any express warranties. Answering defendant denies any breach of any implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose and/or merchantability.”
Each answer also cites damage recovery being barred by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, the statute of limitations and/or doctrines of waiver, estoppel and laches.
For 20 counts of negligence, strict liability, breach of express warranties, breach of the implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose and merchantability and loss of consortium, the plaintiffs are seeking damages in excess of the jurisdictional limits of compulsory arbitration, plus all costs, interest and such other and further relief as this Honorable Court may deem just and equitable.
The plaintiffs are represented by James D. Golkow, Daniel L. Hessel and Kimberly Aponte Borden of Golkow Hessel in Philadelphia, Jeffrey K. Millin of Shafer Law Firm in Conneaut Lake, plus Matthew J. Lager of Bernard Stuczynski Barnett & Lager and Dara M. Bucholtz of The Travis Law Firm, both in Erie.
Defendants LGG Industrial, Inc. and Goodall are represented by Brian T. Must and Annamarie Truckley of Metz Lewis Brodman Must O’Keefe, plus Jeffrey J. Wetzel and Kelly B. Cullen of Dickie McCamey & Chilcote, all in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-23-009811
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com