SCRANTON – A pair of Minnesota manufacturers of an off-road utility vehicle have disavowed liability for allegedly contributing to a fatal UTV accident two years ago, which took the life of the plaintiff’s wife by drowning in the aftermath of the crash.
Steven Uchic of Jermyn first filed suit in the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas on March 21 versus Polaris Industries, Inc. and Polaris Sales, Inc. of Medina, Minn., AmSafe Commercial Products, Inc. of Phoenix, Ariz., TransDigm Group, Inc. of Cleveland, Ohio, SHIELD Restraint Systems, Inc. of Elkhart, Ind., Stavola Silverbrook Land, LLC, Stavola Silverbrook Realty, LLC, Stavola Holdings Pennsylvania, LLC, Stavola Pennsylvania Holdings, LLC, Stavola Construction Materials, Inc., Stavola Summit Land, LLC, Stavola Summit Materials and Summit Anthracite, Inc., all of Tinton Falls, N.J., and Silverbrook Anthracite, Inc. of Laflin.
“On or about April 2, 2022, the Uchic family, consisting of plaintiff, his wife, Jamie Lynn Uchic, and minor children, A.U. and W.U, embarked on a family ride on their 2013 Polaris Ranger off-road utility vehicle bearing the VIN of 4XAUH9EAXDB158573, hereinafter referred to as the ‘UTV.’ Plaintiff was driving the UTV and minors A.U., W.U. and Jamie Lynn Uchic were passengers. All occupants of the UTV were belted using the factory provided seatbelts/safety harnesses. Shortly after leaving the family home in Jermyn, PA, the family entered an off-road area via well-worn and easily accessed paths. The land was not properly posted to restrict persons from entering including plaintiff,” the suit said.
“The UTV proceeded upon the path. As the UTV encountered what appeared to be a ‘puddle,’ the UTV began to roll over toward its passenger side. As the UTV rolled over to its passenger side, it along with the Uchic Family began to sink into icy cold waters until completely submerged with the family, plaintiff, minors A.U. and W.U., and Jamie Lynn Uchic, trapped inside. Plaintiff struggled, nearly drowning until he was able to reach the surface for a breath of air. Plaintiff dove below the surface of the water to assist the family out of their seatbelts/harnesses. After several failed attempts, plaintiff pulled his daughter to the surface and onto land. Steven Uchic then pulled his son from the water in the same manner. W.U. turned blue from being submerged in the icy-cold water, but still breathing, when he was pulled from the water.”
The suit added that the plaintiff’s wife, Jamie Lynn Uchic, was unable to free herself and an autopsy would later confirm that her cause of death was drowning.
“At the time of the incident, the Uchic family was lawfully upon the land owned, maintained, operated, leased and/or controlled by defendants Silverbrook Anthracite Inc., Summit Anthracite Inc., Stavola Summit Materials, Stavola Summit Land, LLC, Stavola Construction Materials, Inc., Stavola Pennsylvania Holdings, LLC, Stavola Holdings Pennsylvania, LLC. Stavola Silverbrook Realty LLC, and/or Stavola Silverbrook Land, LLC, collectively, individually, jointly and/or in the alternative. At the time of the incident, the Uchic family were invitees and/or licensees permitted to enter upon and access the defendants’ land,” the suit stated.
“On or about April 2, 2022, the land owned, maintained, operated, leased and/or controlled by defendants Silverbrook Anthracite Inc., Summit Anthracite Inc., Stavola Summit Materials, Stavola Summit Land, LLC, Stavola Construction Materials, Inc., Stavola Pennsylvania Holdings, LLC, Stavola Holdings Pennsylvania, LLC. Stavola Silverbrook Realty LLC, and/or Stavola Silverbrook Land, LLC, contained dangerous conditions which exposed entrants upon the land to serious risk of substantial harm and/or death.”
The plaintiff maintained that the Stavola and Silverbrook defendants held permits to conduct mining operations on the land in question and “failed to adequately warn and/or protect persons upon the land of dangers inherent in entering upon active and/or inactive land used for [said] mining” – and further, that the Polaris, AmSafe, TransDigm and SHIELD defendants “failed to properly manufacture and adequately document the dangers and issues with the UTV and seatbelts/safety harnesses it produced, as well failed to properly test its design to increase productivity at the expense of safety and/or did know and disregarded the risk.”
UPDATE
Defendants Polaris Industries Inc. and Polaris Sales, Inc. filed preliminary objections in the matter on April 16, discounting liability for the accident and countering that several of the plaintiff’s claims are improperly pled.
“Each of plaintiff’s claims against Polaris fails because the subject vehicle and its seatbelts were reasonably safe for their intended purpose. Counts I through III against Polaris – for negligence, strict liability, and breach of implied warranty – fail because each requires the existence of a defect. Counts V and VI – for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress – likewise fail because, in the absence of a defect, there is no tortious conduct on the part of Polaris. Polaris is not an insurer of its product, and to hold Polaris liable for some heretofore unidentified defect with the seatbelt/safety harness alleged to be present while the subject vehicle was totally submerged in water would fly in the face of well-settled Pennsylvania precedent. Simply put, the subject vehicle is not a submarine and is not intended to be operated completely submerged underwater. This also requires dismissal of Counts V and VI (for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress, respectively), because without a defect, there is no tortious conduct, whether negligent or intentional. Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint against Polaris is legally insufficient and must be dismissed. In addition to being legally insufficient, plaintiff’s complaint also fails to allege facts necessary to state a claim,” per the objections, in part.
“To his detriment, plaintiff fails to plead any facts identifying any defect in the subject vehicle. While the complaint is lengthy and alleges everything under the sun, at no time does plaintiff submit concrete, factual averments establishing the specific defect in the subject vehicle. Instead, plaintiff resorts to circular reasoning and conclusory allegations of defect. By way of example, plaintiff alleges in Count II for strict liability that Polaris ‘manufactured, installed and assembled the product which contained a defective condition because the design was defective and unsafe,’ and ‘this design defect made the product unreasonably dangerous.’ Elsewhere in the strict liability count, plaintiff alleges that Polaris should have ‘provided a safer and easier way to use the UTV and unlatch the seatbelts,’ but again, fails to identify anything defective with what was provided. The same is true with regard to plaintiff’s negligence and breach of implied warranty of merchantability claims.”
The answering defendants countered that “all [the] plaintiff has done is submit repeated generalities that the subject vehicle and seatbelt are ‘defective,’ but he is has not identified what the defect is or why exactly the subject vehicle is defective.”
“At bottom, plaintiff’s failure to plead a specific defect is detrimental to his strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty claims. Indeed, the complaint is wholly devoid of the facts necessary to support these claims and, as a result, Counts I, II and III must be dismissed. Moreover, plaintiff’s claims for negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranty also require that he suffer personal injuries. Plaintiff conclusorily states that ‘he was caused to be injured and suffer emotional distress,’ and that he ‘suffered from physical pain, mental anguish, severe emotional distress and humiliation.’ Nowhere in the complaint, however, does plaintiff allege or identify what physical injuries he supposedly sustained in the accident,” the objections continued.
“Here, there no facts explaining how plaintiff was injured or what bodily injuries he allegedly sustained and attributes to some defect in the subject vehicle. The predicate for bringing strict liability, negligence and breach of implied warranty claims is lacking. Therefore, Counts I through III should be dismissed. Count V of plaintiff’s complaint for intentional infliction of emotional distress also lacks sufficient specificity. Intentional infliction of emotional distress requires “intentional extreme and outrageous conduct on the part of the tortfeasor, which causes severe emotional distress to the plaintiff.’ To support this claim, plaintiff merely offers more conclusory allegations. Conclusory allegations and unwarranted inferences disguised as facts are not sufficient to support an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, and Count V should be dismissed for this additional reason.”
For counts of negligence, strict products liability, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of $50,000, plus compensatory damages, punitive damages and any such relief as this Honorable Court deems equitable, just and proper.
The plaintiff is represented by Christopher J. Szewczyk of Mazzoni Valvano Szewczyk & Karam, in Scranton.
Defendants Polaris Industries Inc. and Polaris Sales, Inc. are represented Clem C. Trischler of Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, in Pittsburgh.
Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas case 2024-CV-02130
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com