IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY, MARYLAND

ROBERT BANGERT, et ux.,                                                                             

Plaintiffs, 

v.                                    

MENDANGA, RIBET, FAMINDA &         
     PARTNERS, et al.,      

Defendants.

 

                                              PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS

Plaintiff, Robert Bangert, by and through his attorneys, Ronald V. Miller, Jr., Laura G. Zois, and Miller & Zois, LLC, requests that Defendant, Scheckler, CLH & Associates, admit or deny the following statements of fact.  If objection is made, please state the reason for the objection.  Please specifically deny the matter or set forth in detail the reasons why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny the matter.  Also, please note that the term "accident" refers to the boiler room accident which is the subject of this lawsuit and which occurred on or about September 12, 2008.  Hereinafter, Robert Bangert will be referred to as the “Plaintiff,” Defendant Scheckler, CLH & Associates, Inc., will be referred to as “Defendant Scheckler” or “Scheckler,” and Defendant, Mendanga, Ribet, Faminda & Partners, will be referred to as “Defendant Mendanga” or “Mendanga.”


These requests for admission do not specify the project at issue in this Request.  For example, Request #6 asks you to admit that "Defendant Mendanga’s engineering design did not consider the old boiler."  For this question, and Requests 2, 7-16 and 18-51, the Request is seeking information specifically regarding Defendant Mendanga and/or you did at Prince Georges High School as referenced in Plaintiff's Complaint in this case.

Please admit or deny the following:
                                                                                                             
1.                   Plaintiff is permanently injured as a result of the accident that is the subject of this lawsuit.
2.                   Knowledge of the gas pressure that was provided to the boilers at issue was important to know the proper gas regulator to install on the gas train.
3.                   The amount of gas pressure provided is typically on the engineering specifications when designing a boiler system.
4.                   It is important to consider the ventilation of room in constructing boilers.
5.                   Any boiler room must be properly ventilated.
6.                   Mendanga’s engineering design did not consider the old boiler.
7.                   Mendanga did not consider dampers in its design.
8.                   Mendanga did not consider motorized dampers in your design.
9.                   Neither you nor Mendanga talked to any of the custodians regarding the boiler system prior to the accident that is the subject of this lawsuit.
10.                Mendanga did not give consideration to the effects of the old stack working in conjunction with the new boilers.
11.                Mendanga had a duty to give consideration to the effects of the old stack working in conjunction with the new boilers.
12.                Mendanga’s design did not give consideration to the ventilation of the room that housed the boilers.


13.                Neither you nor Mendanga voiced a disagreement with the purchase order for materials for the construction and installation of this system.
14.                Neither you nor Mendanga considered recommending new stacks to anyone.
15.                Neither you nor Mendanga recommended new stacks.
16.                Neither you nor Mendanga recommended a new damper(s).
17.                Gas burners cannot meet both UL and IRI requirement. (In other words, they are mutually exclusive, if it meets one, it cannot meet the other.)
18.                The stack draft is not discussed in the specifications Mendanga gave or in its drawings.
19.                Both you and Mendanga knew that there was an old boiler that was still in operation at Prince Charles High School that would remain in operation.
20.                Mendanga did not consider whether there was automatic or manual ventilation in the boiler room.
21.                Mendanga did not specify the type of Scotch boiler that would be suitable for this project.
22.                Boiler #2 as referenced in Mendanga’s drawing and in Plaintiff's Complaint was in good condition just moments before the accident that is the subject of this lawsuit.
23.                Boiler #2 as referenced in Mendanga’s drawing and in Plaintiff's Complaint was found to be in good condition immediately after the accident that is the subject of this lawsuit.
23.                The fire tubes in Boiler #2 as referenced in Mendanga’s drawing and in Plaintiff's Complaint were in good condition at the time of the accident that is the subject of this lawsuit.
24.                The fire tubes in Boiler #2 as referenced in Mendanga’s drawing and in Plaintiff's Complaint were in good condition immediately after the accident is the subject of this lawsuit.


25.                There were no barometric draft control dampers on the individual boiler stacks, and there was no positive draft control in the main breeching to the chimney on September 12, 2008.
26.                There were no barometric draft control dampers on the individual boiler stacks, and there was no positive draft control in the main breeching to the chimney on Mendanga’s drawings.
27.                Dampers should have been installed close to the outlet of the boiler of the same size as the boiler stack connection to the existing breeching.
28.                If dampers were required to comply with best practices (as you understand the term), Mendanga had a duty to make the contractor and the client aware of this fact.
29.                The responsibility for the design work that you did rests with Mendanga.
30.                The accident that is the subject of this lawsuit occurred because of an unstable combustion envelope.
31.                The Plaintiffs, Robert Bangert and Juliette Bangert, are residents of Baltimore City, Maryland.
32.                Defendant Mendanga is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Maryland and it engages in regular business in Baltimore City.  Work performed by Defendant Mendanga in Baltimore City is the subject of this lawsuit.
33.                Defendant Scheckler is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Maryland.  It engages in regular business in Baltimore City.  Work performed by Defendant Scheckler in Baltimore City is the subject of this lawsuit.
34.               In 1999, Defendant Scheckler contracted with the City of Baltimore to reconstruct and replace a boiler system at Prince Charles High School located in the City of Baltimore.


35.                Defendant Scheckler contracted with Defendant Mendanga to perform the engineering work for the project.
            36.    On September 12, 2008, Plaintiff Robert Bangert was working on the newly reconstructed boilers built by Defendant Scheckler and designed by Defendant Mendanga in his capacity as an employee of G. D. Technical, Inc.  Specifically, he was working on “Boiler Two" of the three boilers installed by Defendant Scheckler and Defendant.  While working on this system preforming his regular and proper job function, a combustion side explosion occurred at Boiler Two.
37.                Plaintiff Robert Bangert suffered injury as a result of the explosion.
38.    Defendants participated in the sale of a product, the boiler system that was installed at Prince Charles High School.
39.                Defendants constructed, installed and assembled a product which contained a defective condition because the design was defective and unsafe.
40.                This design defect made the product unreasonably dangerous. 
41.                The system as assembled by Defendants remained unchanged and was in the same condition at the time of the injury hereafter alleged.


42.                As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ construction, design and installation of a defectively designed product, Plaintiff Robert Bangert has suffered severe and permanent physical injuries and mental anguish.  Plaintiff Bangert has incurred expenses for medical care and treatment and will continue to need medical care and prescriptions in the future.  Plaintiff Robert Bangert has lost wages and will continue to lose such wages in the future.   Plaintiffs’ marriage and marital relations have suffered.  Plaintiffs need and will continue to need therapy for the marital relationship.   All these damages were directly and proximately caused by the Defendants placing into the stream of commerce a defectively designed product.   
43.                Defendants built a boiler system that had a defective design.  Accordingly, Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiff Robert Bangert, the end user, that the system was designed and installed in such a way that made the system safe for its intended purpose.
44.                Defendants negligently breached their duty because they knew or should have known when building this boiler system it was designed defectively, creating an unreasonable risk of injury for Plaintiff Robert Bangert or other similarly situated.
45.                Defendants were negligent in failing to properly design, manufacture, install, the boiler system, creating a clear and immediate risk of death or serious injury to the end users of the system.
46.                As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ negligent construction, design and installation of the boiler system, Plaintiff Robert Bangert has suffered physical injuries and mental anguish.  Plaintiff Robert Bangert has incurred expenses for medical care and treatment, medicines, nursing services, physical therapy, and other types of medical related attention.  Plaintiff Robert Bangert has lost wages and will continue to lose such wages in the future.   Plaintiffs’ marriage and marital relations have suffered.  Plaintiffs need and will continue to need therapy for the marital relationship.   All these damages were directly and proximately caused by the Defendants placing into the stream of commerce a defectively designed product.   
47.                The above described acts occurred while Defendant Mendanga was an agent, servant and/or employee of Defendant Scheckler.


48.                The above described acts of Defendant Mendanga were committed while in the scope of its agency for Defendant Scheckler and while furthering the business interests of Scheckler, CLH & Associates, Inc.
49.                As the principal for Defendant Mendanga, Defendant Scheckler is responsible for all of the acts committed by Defendant Mendanga while in the scope of its agency.
50.       Plaintiff Robert Bangert and Plaintiff Juliette Bangert were husband and wife at the time of the occurrence referred to in this Complaint.  They were married and continue to be husband and wife.
51.       The conduct of the Defendants, more specifically described in Counts I, II, and III, and incorporated herein by reference, caused injury to the marital relationship of the Plaintiffs, including a loss of society, affection, assistance, companionship, and sexual relations.

 

Respectfully submitted,

MILLER & ZOIS, LLC

 

                                                                            
Ronald V. Miller, Jr.
Laura G. Zois
Empire Towers, Suite 615
7310 Ritchie Highway
Glen Burnie, Maryland    21061
(410)553-6000
(410)760-8922 (Fax)
Counsel for Plaintiffs

   

More Information on Request for Admission