Pennsylvania Verdicts

Plaintiff(s):

Steven Mader (Male, 54 Years)

Plaintiff Attorney(s):

Joyce Novotny-Prettiman;
Quatrini Rafferty, P.C.;
Greensburg,
PA,
for
Steven Mader ■ Joel S. Rosen;
Cohen, Placitella & Roth, P.C.;
Philadelphia,
PA,
for
Steven Mader

Plaintiff Expert(s):

Eric McDade; D.O.; Neurology; St. Louis,
MO called by:
Joyce Novotny-Prettiman, Joel S. Rosen ■ Megan Cortazzo; M.D.; Physical Medicine; Pittsburgh,
PA called by:
Joyce Novotny-Prettiman, Joel S. Rosen ■ Royal Bunin; M.B.A.; Economics; Wynnewood,
PA called by:
Joyce Novotny-Prettiman, Joel S. Rosen ■ Donald Ryan; B.S.N., R.N.; Life Care Planning; Powell,
OH called by:
Joyce Novotny-Prettiman, Joel S. Rosen ■ Gregory Booth; P.E.; Electrical; Raleigh,
NC called by:
Joyce Novotny-Prettiman, Joel S. Rosen

Defendant(s):

Duquesne Light Co., 

Duquesne Light Holdings Inc.

Defense Attorney(s):

Gary P. Hunt;
Tucker Arensberg, P.C.;
Pittsburgh,
PA,
for
Duquesne Light Co., Duquesne Light Holdings Inc. ■ Jeremy V. Farrell;
Tucker Arensberg, P.C.;
Pittsburgh,
PA,
for
Duquesne Light Co., Duquesne Light Holdings Inc.

Defendant Expert(s):

Brad Klein;
Neurology;
Abington,
PA called by:
Gary P. Hunt, Jeremy V. Farrell ■ Karl Jarek;
Economics;
Pittsburgh,
PA called by:
Gary P. Hunt, Jeremy V. Farrell ■ Kelly Campbell;
Life Care Planning;
Pittsburgh,
PA called by:
Gary P. Hunt, Jeremy V. Farrell ■ Thomas Muzzonigro;
Orthopedic Surgery;
Butler,
PA called by:
Gary P. Hunt, Jeremy V. Farrell ■ Frederick Brooks;
Electrical;
Baton Rouge,
LA called by:
Gary P. Hunt, Jeremy V. Farrell

On Sept. 21, 2012, plaintiff Steven Mader, 54, a contractor, was cleaning out gutters for a customer at 514 Woodland Road, in Pittsburgh. There were two high-voltage primary power lines that ran over the backyard of the property which were owned by Duquesne Light Co. As Mader was carrying an extension ladder in the backyard, the top of the ladder made contact with one of the power lines. The power from the line ran down the ladder, through Mader, out his feet, and into the ground. He was shocked by 13,000 volts of electricity. The front half of both of his feet were severely burned. Mader sued Duquesne Light Co. and affiliate Duquesne Light Holdings Inc., alleging that the location of the power line was dangerous. The line was 16 feet, 6 inches from the ground and 12 feet from the property itself. According to Mader’s expert in electrical engineering, the line location was dangerously close to the property and presented an extremely dangerous condition to anyone who might be in the backyard of that property. The dangerous height and proximity of the high-powered line to the home was exacerbated by the fact that one of the poles attached to the line was leaning, causing the line to be significantly closer to the ground than intended, the expert testified. The expert maintained that the location of the power line was in violation of industry standards and of the National Electric Safety Code. Duquesne failed to properly inspect the poles and lines and failed to remedy the hazard. According to the expert, Duquesne’s duty as an owner and supplier of electrical facilities was to exercise the highest duty of care practicable to avoid injury to all persons lawfully in proximity to its electrical wires. However, Duquesne failed in its obligations as an owner of this extremely dangerous instrumentality, the expert concluded. Duquesne’s expert in electrical engineering testified that the direct cause of the accident was Mader’s improper act of carrying a conductive aluminum ladder in a vertical position and moving it into contact with an overhead electric line. The act was in violation of universally accepted safety rules and regulations. According to the expert, the electric lines were open, obvious, and visible. Mader’s carelessness and disregard for his own safety by allowing an aluminum ladder to hit the wire was the proximate cause of his injuries, the expert stated. He concluded that there was nothing the company did or failed to do that caused the accident. Duquesne fully conformed to the requirements of the National Electric Safety Code and applicable industry standards, the expert opined.

Mader was shocked and rendered unconscious. He was taken by ambulance to an emergency room, where he was diagnosed with severe burns to his toes, to the upper portion of his feet, and to his hands and forearms. He suffered right-sided paralysis. Mader was admitted and transferred to the intensive care unit, and in the ensuing days he had multiple skin grafts, debridements, and burn treatments. On Oct. 1, he had bilateral transmetatarsal amputation of his feet. On Oct. 23, Mader was transferred to a skilled-nursing facility. Two days layer, he returned to the hospital, where he had debridement of open wounds to his right forearm, elbow, and upper arm. During rehabilitation, Mader relearned how to walk with the use of parallel bars and a wheeled walker. He was discharged at the end of the year. In December, Mader was examined by a neurologist after experiencing memory loss and other cognitive issues, including behavioral changes and difficulties with word-finding. The neurologist noted there was evidence of difficulties with executive function, including his working memory, and noted some mild impulsivity and decreased verbal fluency. The impairments were further supported by neuropsychological testing. In early 2013, Mader consulted with orthopedic surgeons with complaints of right-knee pain, and it was determined that his pre-existing arthritis had been aggravated by his impaired gait, due to his amputations. In March, he underwent an arthroplasty/total knee replacement. In June, Mader began seeing a pain-management specialist for lumbar-spine spasms. He treated with pain medication and facet injections. In the ensuing years, and until the time of trial, Mader continued to treat with pain management and physical therapy, and to consult with orthopedic surgeons regarding his impaired gait. He sought to recover $444,526 in past medical costs and $223,646 in past wages, as he had not returned to work and had been deemed permanently disabled. Mader’s physiatrist discussed his injuries and treatment and outlined his future care. He will require a lifetime of treatment, which includes replacements of his left knee and both hips, physical therapy, a personal assistant to help him with daily activities, orthotics, and changes to make his home more handicapped-accessible. Mader has been fitted with shoe inserts and ankle-foot orthotics. He sought to recover $2,183.486 in future medical costs and $448,812 to $638,646 in future lost earnings. Mader testified that he had been a vital, independent man who took pride in owning and running his own business. His identity has been taken from him, due to the accident. Since he is unable to walk long distances and perform any physical activities, he leads a sedentary lifestyle. He sought damages for past and future pain and suffering. Mader’s counsel argued that Duquesne’s conduct was outrageous, which warranted the jury to award punitive damages. According to Duquesne’s expert in orthopedic surgery, Mader’s right-knee replacement was solely due to his pre-existing arthritis, and not the result of his amputations. The expert determined that his claim for future replacements of his left knee and hips were also due to his longstanding arthritis, not to any effects from an impaired gait. Given that Mader would not need the future knee and bilateral-hip replacements, Duquesne’s expert in life-care planning estimated his future medical costs at $42,636.65 to $50,483.67. Duquesne’s expert in economics determined that Mader would only sustain $67,883 to $267,498 in future lost earnings.

The jury found that Mader was 40 percent liable and Duquesne 60 percent liable. Mader was determined to receive $500,000, which was accordingly reduced to $300,000. The jury determined that Duquesne’s conduct was not outrageous.

Steven Mader: $444,526 Personal Injury: Past Medical Cost; $55,474 Personal Injury: Future Medical Cost

Actual Award:

$300,000

Judge:

Alan D. Hertzberg

Trial Length:

8
 days

This report is based on information that was provided by plaintiff’s counsel and on court documents. Defense counsel did not respond to the reporter’s phone calls.