Venue Workplace Injury Specificity of Complaint
Cohen v. Ellwood Crankshaft and Mach. Co., PICS Case No. 17-1172 (C.P. Lawrence July 12, 2017) Motto, P.J. (11 pages).
Venue was proper in this personal injury action against two alleged tortfeasors in the county where one of them had an office, and which was also the county where the accident occurred. Where plaintiff did not allege sufficient factual detail about the accident and the parties' employment relationship, the court granted a preliminary objection and allowed plaintiff to amend.
Plaintiff filed this action to recover for injuries he sustained as the result of an industrial accident which occurred on premises owned and operated by Ellwood Crankshaft and Machine Co. ("Ellwood") in Mercer County, Pennsylvania. Penn-Ohio Electrical Co. ("Penn-Ohio") was an electrical contractor, incorporated in Ohio.
Penn-Ohio filed a preliminary objection, claiming venue was improper in Lawrence County and arguing in favor of a transfer to Mercer County, where the accident occurred. The case involved no allegations that Penn-Ohio conducted any business in Lawrence County. Based on the undisputed facts that Ellwood was a limited liability company with an office in Lawrence County, the court concluded venue was proper there. Additionally, an action to enforce joint and several liability against two or more defendants was permissible in any county in which venue was proper against one of the defendants. The court denied Penn-Ohio's objection as to venue.
Ellwood filed a preliminary objection demanding a more specific pleading. Plaintiff's complaint alleged that during the course of plaintiff's employment, he was moving a pressurized paint can from under a table saw when the can came into contact with a live wire. This caused an explosion which resulted in third-degree burns to plaintiff's arms, burns on his face, and other injuries. Plaintiff alleged defendants were negligent in causing or permitting a dangerous condition to exist, in failing to implement appropriate safety procedures, in failing to shut off power to the electrical wires, in failing to provide warning, and in failing to eliminate the dangerous condition. Ellwood argued the complaint left it without sufficient information to prepare a defense because plaintiff did not plead facts sufficient for Ellwood to ascertain the role of the parties at the facility and their relation to plaintiff.
The court concluded the complaint lacked sufficient specificity, because plaintiff did not identify his employer or describe in any detail the nature of the work he was undertaking at the facility. In addition, plaintiff did not allege the location within the plant at which the incident occurred. The complaint lacked information as to the roles of the parties at the facility and their relationship to plaintiff. The court recognized that information could be obtained in discovery if it denied the objection, however, the court concluded that the information requested was properly considered to be part of the factual basis of plaintiff's claims and should have been set forth in the complaint. The court granted the preliminary objection and allowed plaintiff to file an amended complaint with the appropriate specificity.