Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-5050 CIVILROBERT J. EISENHAUER and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF HELEN B. EISENHAUER, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs vs. 98-5050 CIVIL MESSIAH VILLAGE, MESSIAH HOME, a/k/a/MESSIAH HOME, INC.; SAMSONITE CORP. a/k/a CIVIL ACTION - LAW SAMSONITE CORP.; SUNBEAM- OSTER; SUNBEAM/OSTER COMPANY, INC.; U.S. INDUSTRIES, INC.; SAMSONITE FURNITURE COMPANY; SAMSONITE FURNITURE L1NEAL, a/k/a SAMSONITE FURNITURE L1NEAL GRP.; SAMSONITE L1NEAL GROUP, INC.; L1NEAL GROUP, INC.; MECO CORP.; BEATRICE CO. a/k/a BEATRICE COMPANY; and BEATRICE ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendants IN RE: SAMSONITE CORPORATION'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BEFORE BAYLEY AND HESS, J.J. OPINION AND ORDER Statement of Facts Before the court is a motion for summary judgment filed by defendant, Samsonite Corporation. The plaintiffs, Robert J. Eisenhauer and Helen B. Eisenhauer, filed a complaint against Samsonite and the other captioned defendants on September 13, 1999. The complaint alleges that Robert Eisenhauer was injured on September 1, 1996, as a result of the collapse of a chair in which he was sitting. The incident occurred at the Messiah Village Nursing Home. The plaintiffs' complaint further alleges that Samsonite Corporation designed, manufactured and sold 98-5050 CIVIL the chair at issue, thereby presenting claims of strict liability, negligence and breach of warranty. Samsonite's summary judgment motion asserts that the plaintiffs have failed to present any evidence that the chair which allegedly collapsed was, in fact, designed, manufactured or sold by Samsonite. The defendant, Messiah Village, has presented a chair that is alleged to be the one that collapsed on September 1, 1996. The chair has the name "Samsonite" embossed on the underside of the plastic seat. A nurse, Joan Reynolds, testified in her deposition that, subsequent to the accident, she saw the chair in her supervisor's office but she does not recall who moved the chair to that office. (Reynolds' dep. p.28-29). Nurse Reynolds stated that there was a note taped to the chair in the supervisor's office that said that the chair was not to be removed. (Reynolds' dep. p.48). Nurse Reynolds further testified that the chair was ultimately taken from the supervisor's office to the office of one John Finley. (Reynolds' dep. p.40). A witness, Carolyn Schade, stated that, after the alleged accident, she inspected the chair that Mr. Eisenhauer was sitting in and found that there were loose screws and that the chair would not stand up properly. (Schade dep. p. 29). She recalls that she took the chair from the room where it allegedly collapsed to her office. (Schade dep. p.27). She placed the note on the chair and that the chair remained in her office for a couple months. (Schade dep. p.36 and p. 39). Mr. John Finley is the chief financial officer at Messiah Village. He received an incident report concerning the collapsed chair. (Finley dep. p. 5 and p. 24). Mr. Finley testified that the incident report stated that the chair involved in the alleged accident was missing screws, however, the chair presented to him as being the one involved in the accident had no missing screws. (Finley dep. p. 24). Mr. Finley could not say, in fact, whether the chair presented to him as the chair involved in the accident was the chair Mr. Eisenhauer was sitting in when he fell on 2 98-5050 CIVIL September 1, 1996. Mr. Finley does not know if there were any repairs made to the chair subsequent to the accident. (Finley dep. p. 25). The plaintiff, Robert Eisenhauer, states that the chair that was involved in his fall broke into two pieces. (Robert Eisenhauer dep. p. 95). Plaintiff Helen Eisenhauer also testified that the chair was in two pieces after the alleged fall. (Helen Eisenhauer dep. p. 23). Both John Fry, vice president of campus services, and Greg Witters, director of facility management at Messiah Village, inspected the chair presented as the chair involved in the accident and determined that there was nothing wrong with the chair. (Fry dep. p. 22, Witters dep. p. 9-10). The chair presented in this case as the chair involved in the September 1, 1996, accident has no loose screws, nor is the chair broken in any way. There is no evidence that anyone from Messiah Village ever repaired the chair that was involved in the accident. Discussion The standard for granting a motion for summary judgment is set forth in Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1035.2. After the relevant pleadings are closed, but within such time as not to unreasonably delay trial, any party may move for summary judgment in whole or in part as a matter of law (1) whenever there is no genuine issue of any material fact as to a necessary element of the cause of action or defense which could be established by additional discovery or expert report, or (2) if, after the completion of discovery relevant to the motion, including the production of expert reports, an adverse party who will bear the burden of proof at trial has failed to produce evidence of facts essential to the cause of action or defense which in a jury trial would require the issues to be submitted to a jury. 98-5050 CIVIL Pa. R. Civ. P. 1035.2. Summary judgment should be granted only in cases that are clear and free from doubt. DeWeese v. Anchor Hocking Consumer and Industrial Products Group, 427 Pa. Super. 47, 628 A.2d 421 (Pa. Super. 1993). When considering a motion for summary judgment, the court must examine the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, accept as true all well-pleaded facts and give the non-moving party the benefit of all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. Id. It is well-settled that a party may not defeat a motion for summary judgment by relying on the allegations of the complaint, but must present depositions, affidavits or other acceptable documents to show there is a factual issue for a jury's consideration. Id. "Summary judgment is proper when the plaintiff has failed to establish that the defendant's products were the cause of plaintiff' s injuries." DeWeese v. Anchor Hocking Consumer and Industrial Products Group, 427 Pa. Super. 47, 52, 628 A.2d 421,423, citing Berkebile v. Brantly Helicopter, 462 Pa. 83, 337 A.2d 893 (Pa. 1975). Similarly, the court in Eckenrod v. GAF Corporation, 375 Pa. Super. 187, 544 A.2d 50 (Pa. Super. 1988), said that summary judgment is proper when the plaintiff has not established that the defendant's product was the cause of plaintiff's injuries. In DeWeese, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant manufacturer because the plaintiff was unable to produce the product that caused the damage to the defendants for inspection during discovery. DeWeese at 49, 628 A.2d at 422. In that case, the plaintiff was employed as a busboy. While filling a glass pitcher with hot water, the plaintiff was injured when the pitcher exploded. The plaintiff was taken to the hospital and the remnants of the pitcher were discarded. The plaintiff then filed a complaint alleging that the pitcher was defective and the manufacturer was strictly liable. The 4 98-5050 CIVIL court held that where a plaintiff brings an action claiming that he suffered injury as a result of a defective product, his failure to produce the product for inspection by the defense will render summary judgment against him appropriate. DeWeese at 50, 628 A.2d at 423. In order to establish a successful cause of action in products liability, a plaintiff must prove that a defect in a product proximately caused injury to him or her. DeWeese at 51,628 A.2d at 423. In DeWeese_, the plaintiff could not recall the type of pitcher involved in the alleged accident. Id. The plaintiff in DeWeese testified that there were more than a dozen different pitchers at the club and he did not know who manufactured the one he used. DeWeese at 52, 628 A.2d at 424. In the case sub judice, plaintiffs have not presented any evidence that supports the allegation that the Samsonite chair at issue was in fact the chair involved in the accident on September 1, 1996. Although Messiah Village may have Samsonite chairs at its facilities, there has been no testimony or documents that show the chair involved in the accident was in fact a Samsonite chair. As an aside, courts have held that a plaintiff can prove identification of a defective product through circumstantial evidence. In Payton v. Pennsylvania Sling Co., 710 A.2d 1221, 1224 (Pa. Super. 1998), the court stated: .... [I]n cases in which the allegedly defective product is not available, a plaintiff may prove identification through circumstantial evidence. That is, the failure to produce the product and, thus, offer direct evidence of the manufacturer's identity does not automatically bar a plaintiff's recovery. The determination of whether a plaintiff has produced sufficient circumstantial identification evidence is factual and, thus, case- specific. Payton v. Pennsylvania Sling Co., 710 A.2d 1221, 1224 (Pa. Super. 1998). 98-5050 CIVIL In the present case, plaintiffs have not set forth even circumstantial evidence to identify the actual chair involved as the Samsonite chair at issue. Plaintiffs have no knowledge concerning the manufacturer of, or the current whereabouts of the chair involved in the accident. In fact, plaintiffs do not believe the Samsonite chair at issue is the chair that was involved in the accident because plaintiffs allege that the chair was broken. Although defendant Messiah Village alleges that the chair involved was preserved, the testimony reveals that the Samsonite chair produced cannot be the chair involved in the accident. There is testimony that the chair involved in the accident had loose or missing screws. There was also testimony that the chair Mr. Eisenhauer was sitting in at the time of the accident was broken in two pieces. There is no evidence that the chair was ever repaired by anyone subsequent to the accident. The Samsonite chair, that has been produced in this case, is in good working order with all the screws firmly in place. Even assuming that the chair presented by Messiah Village as the chair that was involved in the accident is in fact the chair that was involved in the accident, the plaintiffs would still fail in their cause of action. In Schmidt v. Mid-Atlantic Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 39 Pa. D.&C.3d 647, 649 (Pa. Com. P1. 1986), the court stated: In order to recover on a strict liability theory the plaintiff is required not only to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject bottle was defective, whether in manufacture, design or because it lacked adequate warnings to make it safe, but that such a defective condition as existed for whatever reasons was a substantial factor in causing harm to him. Schmidt v. Mid-Atlantic Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 39 Pa. D.&C.3d 647, 649 (Pa. Com. P1. 1986). 98-5050 CIVIL The Samsonite chair presented as the chair involved is in perfect working condition. There are no missing screws and it operates as a chair should. The chair stands upright and is sturdy, and all those that have investigated the chair testified that it is in good working condition. Further, there is no evidence that the chair has been repaired in any fashion, but is, in fact, in the same condition as it was at the time of the accident. Therefore, the chair presented by Messiah Village is not defective. In light of its condition, it is immaterial whether the chair produced as the alleged instrumentality of the harm is or is not the chair involved in the accident. Either way, the defendant is entitled to summary judgment. ORDER AND NOW, this day of November, 2002, the motion for summary judgment of defendant, Samsonite Corporation, is GRANTED and the plaintiffs' complaint against defendant is DISMISSED with prejudice. BY THE COURT, Kevin A. Hess, J. Jered L. Hock, Esquire For the Plaintiffs Jeffrey B. Rettig, Esquire For Defendant Samsonite Corporation William J. Peters, Esquire For Defendant Messiah Village and Messiah Home :rlm ROBERT J. EISENHAUER and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF HELEN B. EISENHAUER, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs vs. 98-5050 CIVIL MESSIAH VILLAGE, MESSIAH HOME, a/k/a/MESSIAH HOME, INC.; SAMSONITE CORP. a/k/a CIVIL ACTION - LAW SAMSONITE CORP.; SUNBEAM- OSTER; SUNBEAM/OSTER COMPANY, INC.; U.S. INDUSTRIES, INC.; SAMSONITE FURNITURE COMPANY; SAMSONITE FURNITURE LINEAL, a/k/a SAMSONITE FURNITURE LINEAL GRP.; SAMSONITE LINEAL GROUP, INC.; LINEAL GROUP, INC.; MECO CORP.; BEATRICE CO. a/k/a BEATRICE COMPANY; and BEATRICE ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendants IN RE: SAMSONITE CORPORATION'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BEFORE BAYLEY AND HESS, J.J. ORDER AND NOW, this day of November, 2002, the motion for summary judgment of defendant, Samsonite Corporation, is GRANTED and the plaintiffs' complaint against defendant is DISMISSED with prejudice. BY THE COURT, Kevin A. Hess, J. Jered L. Hock, Esquire For the Plaintiffs Jeffrey B. Rettig, Esquire For Defendam Samsonite Corporation William J. Peters, Esquire For Defendant Messiah Village and Messiah Home :rlm