Quantcast

Air conditioner manufacturer objects to shipping associate's lawsuit over forklift accident

PENNSYLVANIA RECORD

Sunday, December 22, 2024

Air conditioner manufacturer objects to shipping associate's lawsuit over forklift accident

State Court
Webp brittanyebakshi

Bakshi | Marshall Dennehey

YORK – An air conditioner manufacturing facility has objected to litigation brought by a shipping and receiving associate, who alleged their being struck by a forklift on the job was a result of the company’s negligence and further, that the company allowed the accident to happen and did not report it to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

Adrian J. Thomas of York first filed suit in the York County Court of Common Pleas on April 18 versus Trans-Air Manufacturing, Corp. of Dallastown.

“At all times relevant to this action, plaintiff was employed by Aerotek, Inc., 3411 Concord Rd., York, PA, 17402. On or around July 10, 2023, plaintiff began working at defendant’s manufacturing facility located at 480 E. Locust Street, Dallastown, PA 17313, as an employee of Aerotek between the hours of 7 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, making $18/hour as a shipping/receiving associate. On Oct. 13 2023, at approximately 2:45 p.m., while working in his designated work area, plaintiff was struck from behind without warning by a forklift being operated by Ashley Brenneman, a supervisor employed by defendant,” the suit said.

“As a result of being struck by the forklift, plaintiff was knocked to the ground, causing him acute pain and lacerations to his leg, and required immediate medical attention. Another employee, Bruce McDougle, witnessed the accident, and stated that at the time of the accident, Ashley was driving the forklift forward in plaintiff’s work area while carrying two skids of materials stacked one on top of the other, and did not see plaintiff in her path. Following the accident, Ashley apologized to plaintiff and stated that she did not see him when she struck him. In the days following the accident, plaintiff suffered from continuous acute pain to his left leg and foot, which caused sleep deprivation and emotional distress.”

The suit continued that on Oct. 16, 2023, the plaintiff was examined at Concentra Urgent Care by Dr. Rashida Lawrence, and diagnosed with a hematoma, lacerations to his left leg and a dislocated toe, all of which were caused by the accident.

“Since the accident, plaintiff has suffered daily pain, sleep deprivation, and emotional distress due to his injuries. He also has difficulty walking. Prior to the accident, defendant failed to provide a safe working environment for its employees by failing to mark its facility with safety lines to differentiate between work areas and forklift lanes, in violation of OSHA [regulations]. Prior to the accident, defendant failed to adequately train Ashley Brenneman on how to properly move materials with a forklift in accordance with OSHA standards; specifically: That carrying two skids of materials stacked on top of one another on one set of forks, that driving forward while carrying a load that the driver cannot see over or around and that driving into another person’s work area or where pedestrian traffic is located without utilizing a safety horn or beep [are all violations of OSHA regulations],” the suit stated.

“Following the accident, defendant failed to report the accident to OSHA, as required by OSHA [regulations]. On March 14, 2024, plaintiff received information from a representative of OSHA that defendant had not reported any incident or accident involving plaintiff on Oct. 13, 2023. Upon information and belief, defendant failed to report plaintiff’s injury to OSHA because it knowingly conducts business in violation of multiple OSHA requirements, including, but not limited to, the violations that caused his injuries on Oct. 13, 2023. Defendant was recklessly indifferent to the dangers posed to plaintiff and other non-forklift drivers by permitting its forklift drivers to operate in a reckless manner with no supervision, without the use of safety lines, without sufficient OSHA safety training and failing to report safety violations to OSHA.”

UPDATE

On May 13, the defendant filed preliminary objections in the case, based on arguments of improper service and legal insufficiency of its pleadings.

“Plaintiff has failed to properly serve Trans-Air, and instead has opted to mail the complaint to Trans-Air. Proper service of original process is a prerequisite to the court's jurisdiction over a defendant. Service of process is a mechanism by which a court obtains jurisdiction of a defendant, and therefore, the rules concerning service of process must be strictly followed. Lack of service is not merely a procedural defect that can be ignored, even where a defendant subsequently learns of the action against them. Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 400, original process shall be served within the Commonwealth only by the sheriff. Further, under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 402, original process may only be served by handing a copy to the defendant, or, for a business, at any office or usual place of business of the defendant to his agent or to the person for the time being in charge thereof. Here, by only mailing the complaint to Trans-Air, plaintiff has failed to properly serve Trans-Air. As such, plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed as plaintiff cannot proceed against Trans-Air without proper service,” the objections stated.

“If plaintiff’s complaint is not wholly dismissed, plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages must be dismissed. Plaintiff’s complaint contains multiple demands for punitive damages, and makes multiple allegations of recklessness. Pursuant to Pennsylvania law, punitive damages will be permitted only when the defendant’s conduct is outrageous, meaning that the defendant’s conduct is egregious and shows either an evil motive or reckless indifference to others. Here, plaintiff has failed to plead sufficient facts to support claims for punitive damages. Thus plaintiff’s allegations of recklessness in Paragraphs 18, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 must be stricken, and plaintiff’s demands for punitive damages must be dismissed, with prejudice.”

Additionally, the defense said the claim for attorney’s fees in invalid.

“Plaintiff’s claims for attorney’s fees and other court costs must be dismissed. In his complaint, plaintiff demands damages in the form of costs of court, interest at the statutory rate from the date of commencement of the civil action, attorney’s fees, fees for expert witnesses, and fees associated with conducting discovery. Generally, Pennsylvania adheres to the ‘American Rule,’ which states that litigants are responsible for their own litigation costs and may not recover them from an adverse party unless there is express statutory authorization, a clear agreement of the parties or some other established exception. Here, there is no express statutory provision that provides plaintiff with a right to recover attorney’s fees,” the objections stated.

“Additionally, plaintiff has not alleged that there is an agreement between the parties which contains a provision entitling him to attorney’s fees. Last, no other established exception applies in this instance. Absent some recognized exception to the American Rule, plaintiff is not permitted to recover attorney’s fees and/or court costs, including expert witness and discovery fees. Additionally, while plaintiff appears to make a demand for statutory interest, plaintiff has not put forth any statute that would allow for such interest to be demanded. Instead, plaintiff is merely making a claim for common law negligence under the Restatement (Second) of Torts. Accordingly, plaintiff’s demand for attorney’s fees and other court costs must be dismissed.”

For counts of negligence, failure to train and supervise and vicarious liability, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by the jury for pain and suffering, and punitive damages in the amount of $50,000 for actions that were performed with a reckless indifference to the safety of plaintiff and others.

The plaintiff is representing himself in this matter.

The defendant is represented by Brittany E. Bakshi of Marshall Dennehey, in Camp Hill.

York County Court of Common Pleas case 2024-SU-001111

From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

More News