PITTSBURGH – A local man maintains that he sustained a litany of bodily injuries due to the negligence of a bicycle company, which he says caused him to fall off the defectively-manufactured bike he was riding on two separate occasions in 2022.
Jonathan Klonowski of Pittsburgh first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on April 12 versus Trek Retail Corporation of Pittsburgh and Trek Bicycle Corporation, Ltd. of Waterloo, Wis.
“On or about Dec. 14, 2019, plaintiff purchased a Trek Emonda SL Frame from Dream Bikes of Rochester. Thereafter, plaintiff purchased component parts from defendant Trek Retail located in Pittsburgh to install and/or incorporate on the Trek Emonda SL Frame. Defendant Trek Pittsburgh then assembled the component parts onto the Trek Emonda SL Frame, composing a bicycle,” the suit stated.
“Plaintiff returned to defendant Trek Pittsburgh on multiple occasions in April of 2022, on or about April 2, April 6, and April 13, 2022, for service and/or repairs of the subject bicycle, including a bottom bracket repair and carbon epoxy repair. Defendant Trek Pittsburgh undertook the responsibility to service and/or repair the subject bicycle, and represented to the plaintiff that the subject bicycle was in a safe, rideable and operable condition. On or about April 16, 2022, plaintiff competed in a bicycle racing competition at the Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire wherein plaintiff rode, operated and competed in the race with the subject bicycle.”
The suit continued that during the race, the plaintiff was “operating the subject bicycle in an anticipated, intended, normal, reasonable and foreseeable manner when, suddenly and without warning, the subject bicycle failed, malfunctioned and/or stalled, locking and/or ceasing the subject bicycle from spinning, causing plaintiff to be aggressively thrown from the subject bicycle, fall to the ground, and sustain injury to his shoulder and damages.”
“Afterwards, plaintiff again returned to defendant Trek Pittsburgh to diagnose any and all issues with the subject bicycle and make repairs and/or service to the subject bicycle. Defendant Trek Pittsburgh undertook the responsibility to review the subject bicycle, and represented to the plaintiff that the subject bicycle was in a safe, rideable and operable condition. On or about May 25, 2022, plaintiff was riding the subject bicycle failed, malfunctioned, and/or stalled, locking and/or ceasing the subject bicycle from spinning, further causing the front derailleur cable of the subject bicycle to fray and/or lose tension,” the suit said.
“On or about May 26, 2022, plaintiff took the subject bicycle to defendant Trek Pittsburgh for service and/or repairs of the subject bicycle, including repair and/or service of the front derailleur cable. At all relevant times hereto, defendant Trek Pittsburgh undertook the responsibility to repair the subject bicycle, and represented to the plaintiff that the subject bicycle was in a safe, rideable and operable condition. Following those repairs and/or services, on or about June 10, 2022, plaintiff was riding the subject bicycle under anticipated, intended, normal, reasonable, and foreseeable use when suddenly and without warning the subject bicycle failed, malfunctioned and/or stalled, locking its crankset and/or ceasing the subject bicycle from operating properly, causing plaintiff to be aggressively thrown from the subject bicycle, fall to the ground, and sustain serious and severe injuries and damages.”
In both accidents, the plaintiff suffered litany of combined injuries, including the following: Separated shoulder, skin lacerations, abrasions, a burst fracture of L2 in lumbar spine, height loss, skin lacerations, bruising, focal kyphosis, non-displaced fracture of L3 right transverse process, edema along the right L3 transverse process, retrolisthesis of L2 on L3, narrowing of the L2-L3 disc space and other serious injuries.
On May 14, the defendants answered the complaint, denied liability and responsibility for the plaintiff’s injuries and provided numerous new matter defenses on their own behalf.
“Trek Bicycle denies each and every allegation contained in plaintiff’s complaint not expressly admitted. Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against Trek Bicycle. Insofar as the evidence produced in discovery or at trial reveals that plaintiff failed to timely commence this instant action, then Trek asserts any and all statutes of limitations as a complete and/or partial bar to plaintiff’s claims. To the extent justified by the facts developed in discovery or at the time of trial, plaintiff’s claims are completely and/or partially barred by the operation of the limitation of warranty or the like provided for the subject bicycle. Plaintiff’s claims are barred or reduced by the contributory negligence and/or comparative fault of plaintiff and others, and plaintiff’s recovery may be barred or reduced by the provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. The alleged losses or damages of plaintiff may have been caused by the intervening or superseding acts of negligence of persons over whom Trek Bicycle exercises no control and for whose conduct Trek Bicycle is not responsible. Plaintiff’s claims are barred or otherwise reduced by the doctrine of assumption of the risk. The accident, injury and/or damage of which plaintiff complains – the occasion, nature and extent of which are unknown after reasonable investigation and inquiry, and therefore and hereinafter, are deemed denied – were caused or contributed to by the act, omission and/or culpable conduct of a party, person, and/or entity for whom or which Trek Bicycle had no right or duty to control and for whom or which Trek Bicycle cannot be held liable,” the defense’s new matter read, in part.
“The accident, injury and/or damage of which plaintiff complains were caused or contributed by the abuse, misuse, unintended and/or improper use of the subject bicycle, including but not limited to the failure to maintain said bicycle and follow warnings and instructions provided by Trek Bicycle, and plaintiff’s claims herein are barred by the same. The accident, injury and/or damage of which plaintiff complains were caused or contributed to by the alteration, modification and/or other change in condition in which the subject bicycle was originally distributed and, thus, plaintiff’s claims herein are barred by the same. The accident, injury and/or damage of which plaintiff complains were caused or contributed to by a pre-existing condition which Trek Bicycle did not cause or contribute to and for which Trek Bicycle cannot be held liable, in whole or in part. Plaintiff’s claims may be barred or otherwise limited by the spoliation doctrine. To the extent shown in discovery, the subject bicycle referenced in plaintiff’s complaint may have been improperly serviced, repaired or maintained and/or subjected to abnormal, unreasonable and unforeseeable use after it left the possession and/or control of Trek Bicycle. It is specifically denied that the subject bicycle frame or other products manufactured, designed, or sold by Trek Bicycle that are referenced in plaintiff’s complaint was in a defective or dangerous condition or was unsafe as alleged in this lawsuit at the time it left the possession and/or control of Trek Bicycle.”
UPDATE
The plaintiff replied to the new matter on May 29, denying it in its entirety.
“The averments contained in…the defendant’s new matter are conclusions of law to which no responses are required. However, if any statements of fact are averred, the same are denied generally pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure,” the reply stated, in part.
For counts of strict liability, negligence and breach of warranty, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of applicable arbitration limits, exclusive of interest and costs.
The plaintiff is represented by Jason M. Schiffman and Gina M. McKlveen of the Schiffman Firm, in Pittsburgh.
The defendants are represented by Edward M. Vavro Jr. and Lars A. Peterson of Dickie McCamey & Chilcote in Pittsburgh, plus David J. Turek and Emily Constantine of Gass Turek, in Milwaukee, Wis.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-24-004237
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com