Pennsylvania Verdicts

Find out about the most important recent Pennsylvania cases, selected by VerdictSearch editors. Coverage includes Allegheny, Montgomery and Philadelphia counties. Subscribe to VerdictSearch Pennsylvania for access to all Pennsylvania verdictsPricing Options

Ballroom rejected blame for sparklers that burned guest

Type:

Verdict-Defendant

State:

Pennsylvania

Venue:

Philadelphia County

Court:

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas

Injury Type(s):

burns-third degree; chest; other-scar and/or disfigurement; mental/psychological-emotional distress

Case Type:

Worker/Workplace Negligence – Negligent Training, Negligent Supervision

Case Name:

Kathryn L. Stewart v. Illona LLC t/a Cescaphe, Tendenza LLC, and Cescaphe Ltd. LLC,
No. 130901391

Date:

April 28, 2015

Parties

Plaintiff(s):

Kathryn L. Stewart (Female, 28 Years)

Plaintiff Attorney(s):

Richard W. Yost;
Yost & Tretta LLP;
Philadelphia,
PA,
for
Kathryn L. Stewart

Plaintiff Expert(s):

Louis Gahagan; Pyrotechnics; Lafayette Hill,
PA called by:
Richard W. Yost ■ Franziska Ringpfeil; M.D.; Dermatology; Philadelphia,
PA called by:
Richard W. Yost

Defendant(s):

Illona LLC, 

Scott Hadley, 

Tendenza LLC, 

Cescaphe Ltd. LLC, 

Jennifer Lundmark

Defense Attorney(s):

John R. Evans;
Bolan Jahnsen Dacey Esqs.;
Havertown,
PA,
for
Illona LLC, Tendenza LLC, Cescaphe Ltd. LLC ■ Jeffrey E. Tenthoff;
Bolan Jahnsen Dacey Esqs.;
Philadelphia,
PA,
for
Scott Hadley, Jennifer Lundmark

Defendant Expert(s):

David Lesak;
Hazardous Materials;
Allentown,
PA called by:
John R. Evans

Insurer(s):

State Farm Insurance Cos. for Jennifer Lundmark and Scott Hadley

Facts:

On Sept. 16, 2011, plaintiff Kathryn L. Stewart, 28, a human resources representative, attended the wedding of Jennifer Lundmark and Scott Hadley at the Cescaphe Ballroom, in Philadelphia. At around midnight, as Lundmark and Hadley exited the ballroom, their guests gathered around the building’s entrance and were given lit sparklers to send off the bride and groom. Stewart alleged that she was already holding a table centerpiece in one hand and an item in her other hand when she was handed the lit sparkler. She claimed that one of the embers landed on her bare chest, burning her. Stewart sued the ballroom, its owner (Illona LLC), and a related entity (Tendenza LLC) alleging negligence. Illona brought in Lundmark and Hadley as third-party defendants. Stewart’s counsel asserted that the Cescaphe staff were improperly trained and supervised in distributing the sparklers. Counsel maintained that the sparklers should not have been distributed at all, especially given the windy conditions of the evening. Her expert in pyrotechnics opined that, since sparklers burn at a couple thousand degrees Fahrenheit, it was ill-advised to hand out sparklers to a crowded wedding party. Illona’s counsel faulted Lundmark and Hadley, since the sparklers were theirs. According to the defense, the venue offered and sold a sparkler package, but the couple, in order to save money, purchased their own sparklers to have Cescaphe personnel distribute to their guests. Illona’s expert in hazardous management testified that there was nothing dangerous or hazardous distributing sparklers, and in doing so violated no codes. Lundmark and Hadley’s counsel maintained that there was no evidence to prove that the couple was negligent. At the wedding, Illona’s corporate designee, who was the event manager that evening, did not believe there was anything wrong or improper to have her staff distribute Lundmark and Hadley’s sparklers to their guests, since he agreed to it, asserted the defense.

Injury:

The following morning, Stewart presented to a walk-in medical facility, where she was diagnosed with a third-degree burn and treated with topical ointment. She followed up with a dermatologist, who, over the next year-and-a-half, performed multiple laser and carbon-dioxide treatments to the burn. Despite the treatment, the burn resulted into a white-colored scar (three-inches long, a half-inch wide) in her cleavage area. Stewart’s dermatologist testified that the scar was permanent and no further treatment would be beneficial. Stewart, who was going to be married following the trial, claimed that the scar caused her difficulty in choosing a wedding dress. She alleged that she had problems wearing certain clothing and going to the beach. Stewart sought damages for past and future pain and suffering.

Result:

The jury found that Illona was not negligent.

Trial Information:

Judge:

Marlene F. Lachman

Demand:

$125,000

Offer:

$20,000 (Illona LLC)

Trial Length:

4
 days

Trial Deliberations:

2
 hours

Editor’s Comment:

This report is based on information that was provided by Scott Hadley and Jennifer Lundmark. Plaintiff’s counsel declined to contribute. Counsel for Illona, Tendenza, and Cescaphe did not respond to the reporter’s phone calls.